Edward, I’m sure you know the answer to that rhetorical question as well as I do. Member states’ obligations under the Refugee Convention are essentially confined to “non refouler” to their homeland of refugees who arrive within their borders.

Hence the Howard government’s excission of thousands of northern islands and reefs from Australia’s migration zone in 2001 (which has not been reversed by the Rudd government); then the tactic of naval blockade, interception and “towaway zone” as the flow of people smuggler vessels continued, and finally the substitution of the Pacific Solution when the people smugglers’ tactic of scuttling their own vessels rendered the “towaway zone” tactic unworkable. All these tactics were designed to avoid Australia’s international legal obligations under the Refugee Convention ever becoming engaged in the first place.

The Refugee Convention does not impose obligations on member states to accept refugee or humanitarian migrants from offshore. Australia has a very large and generous offshore humanitarian migration programme, which is one of the more persuasive bases for maintaining reasonably tough border protection policies.

Incidentally, irregular “boat people” asylum seekers are not “queue jumpers” because there’s no queue in the places they come from, indeed they’re the very sorts of people at whom the Refugee Convention was originally aimed.

However, Australia (and all other countries) has a finite limit on our capacity to absorb without major social disruption large numbers of unskilled, traumatised refugees with radically divergent social, political and religious values from the dominant Australian culture. Thus, Australian governments of both political persuasions have always aggregated the numbers of irregular onshore refugee and humanitarian applicants with the offshore programme in determining the total numbers of visas in these categories that Australia will issue in any given year. The more irregular onshore arrivals who are found entitled to protection visas, the less people we accept under the offshore programme. In that limited sense there’s a queue, but it’s created solely by the (entirely reasonable from the perspective of Australian national interest) counting practices of the Australian government.

This practice (and the reasons behind it) is not unique to Australia. Indeed the relatively few other countries with substantial offshore humanitarian migration programmes address the problem similarly. However, this raises an ongoing dilemma in international refugee law and practice. Should the claims to refugee resettlement of those who apply offshore and patiently wait for their applications to be processed receive priority over those of people who pre-emptively journey here, either with the assistance of “people smugglers” or by air with a tourist or student visa obtained under false pretenses? And should we encourage large scale permanent resettlement at all? There’s no simple, obvious or universally correct method of distinguishing between the moral worth or genuineness of need and desperation of applicants from these various groups, and no simple answer to the second question either.

Although accepting refugees into our community is clearly generously motivated and in the individual interests of the families and individuals to whom we grant visas, there’s a credible argument that permanently resettling large numbers of refugees in western countries may be seriously damaging to the social fabric and prospects for eventual economic and political progress of the strife-torn countries from which these refugees have fled.

Without in any sense denigrating the gravity of the persecution from which they fled, the applicants from both the onshore and offshore stream consist largely of the best, brightest and wealthiest citizens of their home countries. It’s a tragic inversion of former New Zealand PM David Lange’s immortal gibe that migration of Kiwis to Australia raises the IQ of both countries. These are the very people that their home countries will need in order to build or rebuild a viable, prosperous, modern society when/if the civil war and religious or other feuding there is ever overcome to an extent that the refugees can safely return home.

For that reason (as well as Australia’s interest in keeping arrival numbers at levels we can absorb without unacceptable levels of social strife and disruption), you can mount a plausible argument that we should maintain a fairly tough border protection regime which seeks to deter irregular arrivals while also treating them humanely and fairly.

We should also maintain a generous aid programme to allow poor third countries adjacent to the strife-torn nations from which large refugee outflows are being generated to accommodate refugees within their borders in humane, viable conditions until it’s safe for them to return home. At the moment that mostly means India, Iran and some Arab Middle Eastern countries, in that the largest refugee outflows are currently being generated from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Iraq. Incidentally, the Refugee Convention itself (or at least its associated protocols and practices) accepts that the fact a refugee has already found “durable asylum” in a “safe third country” is a valid reason for the receiving (wealthy western) country to refuse to grant a protection visa. That is a common reason for Australia to refuse protection visas, although in some cases the “safety” and “durability” of the asylum provided by the (third world) third country adjacent to the refugee’s homeland may be open to serious question.

The contrary argument to pursuit of a general policy based exclusively on supporting third world “safe third countries” to maintain refugees within their borders is that many of the conflicts and problems that generate refugee flows are very longstanding and seemingly intractable. It’s certainly difficult to see the problems of Afghanistan, Pakistan or Sri Lanka being resolved any time soon. Refugees from those countries could conceivably end up living out their entire lives in refugee camps next door to their home countries. In the real world, whatever policies we choose to adopt some will inevitably resort to desperate expedients to find a viable permanent home for their families. For that reason, there remains a commonsense humanitarian imperative to accept for permanent resettlement as many refugees from such countries as we can absorb without major social disruption.

Finally, does your third (and thankfully last) sentence refer to how a conservative government allowed lots more dark people in than previously?

Edward, it is international humanitarian law. Think ‘motherhood statement’.

Perhaps I missed the argument on the blogs some years back, but why does Australia maintain allegiance to the UN Refugee Convention that says we MUST accept all applications from so called genuine refugees? Of the six billion plus people in the world would not there at least be 100 million who genuinely suffer some type of serious oppression? Does this mean that if they fill out the appropriate forms in duplicate, we are then obliged to accept them all into our country?

I would prefer we accept them on a HECS-style system and simply charge them the (vastly reduced) cost of processing, minimum English lessons and a brief course on Australian law and culture. We could even outsource 99% of that. If numbers did balloon (or even if they didn’t), we could introduce an up-front fee of say $25,000 reducible on a points scale broadly reflecting the current humanitarian visa application assessment metrics.

It is worth adding that notwithstanding public attitude, DIMIA (or whatever they are called now) do not show one iota of leniency for the tourist and student visa holders. I have seen people literally accosted at work and informed that, being as they were in breach of their tourist visa conditions, they must leave the country for a foreign port within 24 hrs.

~ ~ ~
I agree completely, FXH, that Ruddy is a wanker. A more charitable interpretation would be that he has lost his thesaurus and confounded ‘trafficking’ with ’smuggling’, but I prefer mine.

People smugglers are engaged in the world’s most evil trade and they should all rot in jail, because they represent the absolute scum of the earth.

The latest report from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees says asylum applications in Australia increased by 19 per cent last year, from 3980 to 4750. How many came by boat? Actually, 179 or fewer than 4 per cent.

DIMAC fact sheet 60 shows that there were 1,900 onshore protection visas and 5,026 special humanitarian visas granted last year (quite a few of which would have been granted in respect of people arriving onshore with valid visas in other countrues)

In other words, the “boat people” arrivals are a tiny proportion of the total onshore refugee and humanitarian via applicants and grantees, the overwhelming majority of whom arrive on valid tourist and student visas and then make refugee and similar applications once they get here. Unlike the boat people, however, these “legal” arrivals never face mandatory detention and remain within the Australian community while their applications (for identical visas to the “boat people”) and appeals are processed. Why do the “boat people” arouse such fear and loathing but those who can afford a plane ticket and present as respectable enough to be issued a visa (almost by definition on false premises) are not?

The other category, to which I referred in the primary post, are the illegal overstayers, of whom there are more than 60,000 in Australia at any given moment. As Patrick points out, they mostly don’t intend staying permanently, so perhaps that explains why they don’t incur the apoplectic enmity of the “shock jocks” and their moronic listeners. But even the legal arrival protection and humanitarian visa applicants (who clearly DO intend to stay permanently) dwarf the numbers of illegal boat people arrivals. Why the stark contrast in public attitudes? No answer I can think of is a flattering one to those holding such attitudes.

People are generally supposed to declare if they have relevant police or health, but they usually don’t need to provide proof that they don’t. There are various Interpol watch lists and alter systems which are supposed to pick up such things and my understanding is that they usually work well.

Permanent residency applications are understandably somewhat more stringent than tourists, students, working holiday, etc.

But I think Ken’s main point is right – if there is anywhere we should be concerned about in regards to alleged threats to the integrity of our migration laws or our borders, is in people who overstay, not people who announce themselves on arrival.

Frankly, I think the whole term ‘border protection’ is a misnomer when it comes to asylum seekers, as is the whole ’security’ mantra. Asylum seekers in boats do not threaten our borders at all, and nor do they pose any sort of security issue. These people do not enter the country undetected – they want to be found, because they want to lodge asylum requests, and they are always given health and security checks before being allowed into the general community. They are given more direct individual scrutiny than any other type of arrival.

However, whilst I agree with the content and argument of your post, I am puzzled by one device therein, namely the contrast you draw between boat people and ‘western’/'rich’ illegals. Isn’t there a distinction in that the latter are, I would think, rather unlikely to seek permanent residency or even hang around extremely long, and even less likely to attempt to claim social security, whilst the former are here for exactly that (at least the permanent residency part)?

Also, haven’t most tourist and student visa holders already jumped through a number of hoops including police checks, TB screening, etc?

Am I completely wrong about tourist and student visa over-stayers or am I missing something else?