JULIAN BURNSIDE
November 5, 2009 - 4:27PMComments 17
Illustration: Ron Tandberg
In The National Times, Paul Sheehan wrote an article titled "Migration: the true story", which was deceptively persuasive. The problem was that, at crucial points, he mis-stated the facts.
He began: "Australia is not a xenophobic nation. The argument is nonsense. Let me count the ways." He then refers to various aspects of our multi-cultural society.
It is true, broadly, that Australia is not racist, but the success of governments and oppositions in whipping up fear and loathing for asylum seekers is, in part, xenophobic. Xenophobia, the fear of strangers, is different from racism. The fact that multiculturalism has succeeded in Australia does not disprove xenophobia. Apart from any other argument, there are Australians who object to our multiculturalism. But in addition, migrants who come to Australia are encouraged to assimilate quickly and they cease to be strangers. By contrast, boat people who are locked away in desert camps or remote islands, who are held behind razor wire, who are treated as a threat to the fabric of our society, are doomed to remain strangers as long as we treat them so. All the evidence points to Australians being xenophobic.
He makes the argument that "People who arrive by boat present a more confronting challenge to legal, security and health screening than those who arrive by air and overstay their visas. Arrivals by air must present valid documentation before travelling."
Arriving without papers makes identity checks more difficult, although the immigration department copes perfectly well. The security aspect of his statement is wrong. ASIO has said repeatedly that no terrorists, or terror suspects, have come to Australia as boat people. They are likely to come by air, on fake papers. Fake papers are probably a much greater threat than no papers, because if a person has no papers they will have to prove who they are. A person on fake papers is simply waved through.
Sheehan also argues that "The rigorous deterrence and screening of unauthorised arrivals is integral to national security. Some of those who have settled in Australia and later engaged in criminal behaviour or welfare fraud have arrived via the refugee or humanitarian programs. ... A recent spate of convictions for terrorist activity within Australia has largely involved people who came as immigrants."
This is dangerous nonsense, because it mixes together two different things: migration and asylum seeking. The security aspect of boat people is a beat-up which ASIO denies. There is no evidence that boat people are more likely to engage in unlawful activity in Australia than any other group If anything, boat-people are under-represented in crime statistics. What Sheehan is arguing is that 'foreigners are more likely to be criminals, asylum seekers are foreigners, so asylum seekers are criminals'. It is obviously bad logic, and has no facts to support it.
But then it gets even worse. He says: "The Sri Lankan high commissioner to Australia, Senaka Walgampaya, said the Tamil Tigers had received significant support from Australia, a view shared by Australian intelligence."
Assuming that to be so, there are two things to note. First, the Tamils have been engaged in a struggle for independence. It is not surprising that Tamils the world over have supported their struggle. Second, more relevantly to the present debate, he does not and cannot say that the Tamils in Australia who have supported the Tamil Tigers came here as boat people. His point ceases to be one about boat people.
Then Sheehan plays the numbers game, again in a way calculated to mislead readers into a state of panic. He says: "The number of refugees or displaced persons in the world, more than 20 million, is roughly the same as the population of Australia, 22 million. Advanced economies could only accept all these people by incurring domestic social and economic costs, which they are not prepared to make. Immigration policies have ripple-on effects, hence the need for quotas."
Looking at global refugee flows misses the point that very few of them come here. If numbers are a concern, here are some to consider:
Australia's population is 22 million. The number of visitors arriving in Australia each year (for tourism, business etc) is 4.5 million. The number of permanent new immigrants each year is 185,000. The refugee/humanitarian quota per year is 13,500. The number of asylum seekers who come here by air each year is 5000. The number of asylum seekers who have come here by boat this year is 1500, which is equivalent to three days' migration intake. It is hard to understand why anyone can be fussed by an unauthorised boat arrival rate of 1500 per year.
Finally, Sheehan comes to his point: "The 78 ethnic Tamils who have illegally occupied the Australian customs vessel Oceanic Viking are demanding rights that do not exist under international law. Most have been in Indonesia for some time. They want to settle in Australia, or another wealthy country, but that decision is not theirs to make."
Perhaps it is just a quibble, but they have not "illegally occupied" the Oceanic Viking. They were picked up by it.
They were then taken to Indonesia but they do not want to disembark in Indonesia. Why? Because Indonesia has not signed the Refugees Convention, so if these people are forced ashore in Indonesia, they will be locked up indefinitely, even after they are assessed as refugees by the UN High Commission for Refugees. They will be held there without any rights, potentially for 5 to 10 years. Australia will pay to hold them there. At present Australia is paying UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration to accommodate refugees, who are not permitted by Indonesia to work or to live in the community.
It is not too surprising that the 78 Tamils are not keen to be put in jail simply because they don't want to face persecution in Sri Lanka. If some (or even all) of the 78 Tamils have been in Indonesia for some years, the case is plainer. They want freedom. Sheehan says they want to go to "Australia, or another wealthy country", but what they want is to go to a country where they can be free. That seems a reasonable idea to me. In their position, I would want the same.
Wouldn't you?
as posted here
