The language that is used now by governments to describe asylum seekers who arrive on their borders, is a demonstration of why the debate has become so polarised, so emotive, and so intractable.Clearly, he believes that the language chicken comes before the situational egg.
The evolution of Australian government language on asylum seekers has been a tortuous one. In the late 1970s, when the first post-colonial asylum seekers (“boat people”) turned up on Australian shores fleeing conflict in Indochina, the then-immigration minister Michael MacKellar publicly welcomed them, drawing attention to their “harrowing” ordeals in their home country and promising “Australia would offer sanctuary”. He publicly read statements prepared by the asylum seekers, which asked Australia to “please help us for freedom”.Which worked fine. Until the numbers kept coming, and coming, and coming…
As the 70s drew to a close, and as more boats continued to arrive, public unease with the arrivals began to grow louder. Echoing it, government rhetoric began to change.Of course it did. Governments reflect the will of the people who elect them (or at least, that’s what should happen).
Against the backdrop of the success of the Orderly Departure Plan – the multilateral UN-run program which, in 1979, began intercepting boat-borne asylum seekers in their first country of refuge and resettling them all over the world, including Australia – there emerged a sense that for people to turn up on boats was the “wrong” way of arriving. It was improper if not unlawful, a “soft” invasion of a complacent Australia. New boat-borne arrivals began to be dismissed as “queue jumpers” and “economic migrants” .Well, yes. A process was set up intended to be fair and equitable, and yet people chose not to avail themselves of it. So naturally, suspicions arose in the populace. That’s human nature.
It was a crucial semantic shift: the “illegal” construction gave the government the imprimatur, almost the obligation, to enact more punitive policies against asylum seekers.No, simply to reflect the growing unease with those who – seeing a legal gateway – opted instead to do an end run around it. Of course people got wary about the true motives of these migrants. Why wouldn’t they?
By 2013, the language of asylum had become conflated with that of war: the Australian government was “engaged in a war” with those organising boat journeys.Yes, because when you have an ‘enemy’ determined to breach your boundaries and in the process, change your culture and way of life, then you are, de facto, at ‘war’.
The fear that drives the likes of Ben Doherty is the fear that the side he despises is winning:
What exactly is Australia offering? Australia’s avowal to stop the boats is untrue. The boats have not stopped, they are still coming, they are still being stopped: 46 Vietnamese asylum seekers were intercepted at sea last month and secretly returned to Vietnam, some reportedly to detention; undenied allegations the crew of an asylum boat travelling to New Zealand were paid (in US dollars) by Australian officials to turn around; a boat forced back to Indonesia crashing and breaking up on a reef.So as evidence that the policy isn’t working, you offer three examples where migrants didn’t succeed in reaching Australia? You might want to redraft this bit! Maybe after reading a dictionary.
But the UK and Europe appear to be following the Australian lead. Certainly, they are beginning to sound like Australia.Well, good!
By talking tough against asylum seekers – by abusing and dehumanising them, by casting their movement as some amorphous threat rather than a natural and rational human instinct – political leaders are doing nothing to solve the problem, and are only making it worse. Europe is starting to sound like Australia on asylum, the worst thing it could do now is to start acting like it.Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you? Because you can see that it’s working.
And you hate the thought of it working..
7 comments:
No, it's bad. What is the reason why a man can't go from A to B? Is there a moral or ethical reason to stop him? if so, good. If not, is it because he doesn't have the correct paperwork? In which case the question is - why does someone need to ask permission to step over an invisible line?
It's ironic that the Aussies are against immigration so soon after - historically speaking - they populated lands belonging to the Abbos and were legally allowed to shoot them on sight. Possibly the Australian has not inherited not the best mindset to consult on the thorny question, or the ability to cultivate a humane and admirable response.
Furthermore a lot of these refugees - or illegal immigrants if you prefer - have fled lands in conflict with Western powers. You might well complain about being pestered by wasps if you smash their nest and they might well be accurately described as a swarm and may even be a hazard. To forget about the cause is to miss the point.
It won't be long until a HGV driver or policeman is killed in a struggle or the financial cost becomes too high and at that point they could well be rounded up, imprisoned and/or shot. Some people won't mind.
I love these people who talk a good argument. I've yet to see one roll his/her sleeves up and act on their own words.
Australians are not against immigraqtion only against people trying to break into the country.
Who pays for these people when they get here. We do.
I have waited in line at the ocal hospital behind Somalis. Yet I have been paying all my life.
When I arrived in Austalia (in 1961) the populatioln was about ten million. Now it is twenty million.
Who paid for all those schools, hospitals etc etc. We did.
And now we are comnstantly told we an ageing population and obviously a burdon on society.
"No, it's bad. What is the reason why a man can't go from A to B? Is there a moral or ethical reason to stop him? if so, good. If not, is it because he doesn't have the correct paperwork? In which case the question is - why does someone need to ask permission to step over an invisible line? "
If you think the line between Australia (or the UK) and other countries is invisible don't go to the coast what ever you do!
The ethical reason to stop people is because they cost the original inhabitants money.
Or as in the case of Muslims try to change their new country.
Anon 19/08
"Who pays for these people when they get here. We do."
Not quite right. The Government pays them and they shouldn't because it's our money.
If they weren't so generous with other people's money then anyone expecting a free handout would go elsewhere.
"I have waited in line at the (l)ocal hospital behind Somalis"
Again, it's the Government that allows them free treatment to the detriment of those who have paid into the system. This has nothing to do with my argument,
" Who paid for all those schools, hospitals etc etc. We did"
No, the Government did, with borrowed money, and guess who has no choice but to pay the interest?
L Fairfax:
"If you think the line between Australia (or the UK) and other countries is invisible don't go to the coast what ever you do!"
Why, will I see the line in the sea that marks territorial waters, the ones the fish bounce off?
"The ethical reason to stop people is because they cost the original inhabitants money"
The Somalis take your wages and remove taxes and give it to themselves? No, unless you personally send Somalis a check they cost you nothing. What the Government does with the money they've swiped is a different matter.
"Or as in the case of Muslims try to change their new country."
Westerners did change Australia, most countries have been changed which is why we have fields and houses etc. But agreed, Islamic so-called values aren't compatible with ours.
Lynne:
Eh?
Lynne:
Eh?
I'll explain myself clearer. Lots of whinging, no practical solutions.
Clearly something needs to be done but no one knows what that something is. So all we get is whinging, finger pointing, hand wringing and a lot of hot air. Oh and politicians getting a hard-on to bomb brown people whether they're terrorists or not which is, I suspect, partly what got us into this mess in the first place. No thanks to Tony Blair and the morons who voted to invade bits of the Middle East, depose tyrants and leave a political vacuum quickly filled by fundamentalist nutters (whom we initially aided and abetted) who are far worse than the tyrants.
"What is the reason why a man can't go from A to B? Is there a moral or ethical reason to stop him?"
OK, everyone round to anon's house! He can't stop us, morally, can he?
"I love these people who talk a good argument. I've yet to see one roll his/her sleeves up and act on their own words."
Precisely! And when they do, it often goes (hilariously) wrong!
"And now we are comnstantly told we an ageing population and obviously a burdon on society."
Governments are forever seeking to elect a new voting population... :/
Post a Comment