Jumping the queue

stui magpie · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:42 pm

I've found this thread excellent reading in the main. I've learned a fair bit but haven't changed my opinion, as articulated mainly by Tannin with some support from David.

To distil my opinion right down, we need to be able to control who comes here, not to be emotionally blackmailed by vision of people who're doing it hard.

There are a lot of people out there in various parts of the world who're doing it hard. We'll take some, not all, and we'll choose which ones we take.

The fact that some will resort to paying a dodgy bloke with a leaky boat to do something very dangerous like row them to Australia IS a measure of their desperation but it is also totally a measure of their capacity to pay.
Are they more desperate than those in the refugee camps? No way to tell but they are more able to pay.

Allowing boat people to land outsources our control of who comes in, to the people smugglers. Turning boats back is a must. It's not about punishing those people on the boat, it's about sending a clear message - "Don't risk it - don't pay the money - don't get on the boat because you won't get in that way. That door is shut."

We do that, we be consistent in action, our message is clear and the boats will stop coming.

HAL · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:44 pm

As far as I know they are.

Tannin · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:02 pm

Stui, excellent post. I go a little further than that, insofar as I have called (somewhere in this huge thread) for a decrease in our economic migration quotas (e.g., not so many hairdressers coming in as "skilled" migrants) in order to make room for an increased refugee quota.

It is my belief that, once the TV footage of boats trying to sneak into the country stops (because the boats have stopped, because sneaking in on a boat doesn't get you anywhere), at that point, people in Australia generally will be more receptive to refugee issues, and wiling to take more refugees than we take now. Perhaps we will also see a little more effort devoted to dealing with the root-cause problems that create these vast pools of displaced people at that time. But while the boats keep coming, it will never happen.

HAL · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:05 pm

Right now? Congratulations, Tannin. You seem uncertain. Indeed we will see more effort devoted to dealing with the root-cause problems that create these vast pools of displaced people at that time .

Tannin · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm

HAL, I am uncertain. These are very difficult issues, and I don't think any of us have all the answers.

HAL · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:22 pm

That's good information.

Pied Piper · Joined: 20 May 2003 Location: Pig City

^ Indeed - it's a vexed problem.

I'm going to sign out of this thread; I've said all I can to little effect. Tannin, don't know if you saw what I wrote two pages back but you should know this isn't personal; obviously we have a strong disagreement of opinion here but that happens in life. I'm sorry if you've taken some of my remarks the wrong way.

stui magpie · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:28 pm

^

From my perspective Piper, you made some very very good points. I think that this is one of those issues which has a number of facets to it and there is no simple answer that everyone can agree with.

Tannin · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:51 pm

Piper, indeed. Nothing that we have discussed has reduced the respect I have for you - it doesn't stop me thinking that you have got your priorities all wrong, but that is an entirely different thing. Between us, I think we have covered most of the main points in the debate as a whole, which despite our failure to agree, probably produces a pretty useful thread.

But before you go, there are a couple of key questions you have not yet answered. I'll be back with them when I get a moment a little later on.

pietillidie · Joined: 07 Jan 2005

HAL · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:59 pm

Insufficient information.

Tannin · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:17 pm

pietillidie · Joined: 07 Jan 2005

Yes, it is a vexing issue, because the surplus of need is so great. As I have said, history shows wealth is a poor arbitrary measure of need and is not inversely proportional to the value of a human life, hence it is rightly internationally rejected as such. The practical reality of dealing with need within your borders is no more arbitrary and is more politically pragmatic than other options, especially when states across the world agree to do the same (in theory, anyhow). We're just lucky to have such a tiny number of arrivals to deal with. And given the economic growth which is kicking off in most of Asia, security, economic leverage and the structure of the local economy rather than boat people are far more likely the issues on the horizon. (Note, for example, China's new navy strategy which is causing some degree of consternation).

Contra Tannin, I think this ties into the population debate and national strategy (though I will put it in another thread at some stage). It would be nice to be a global oasis, but with a global population of 9 or 10 billion coming our way it won't happen. Bearing that in mind, would the asylum issue look different as part of a national growth, economic and security strategy? I believe it would, and we have the Australian migration experience of last century to prove it. When we needed workers, the doors were opened and the complaints muffled. It's worth pursuing that line of thinking as it may well be thrust upon us in a couple of decades whether we like it or not.

Tannin · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:27 pm

^ I can't get into that debate right now - I'm going to be off the Internet about 5 days out of 7 for the next few weeks, and just don't have the time to read and write at anything above a trivial level just now. But that is certainly a subject I will warm to when I get the chance.

Dr Pie · Dr Pie Joined: 08 Nov 2007