Opportunists seeking back door entry (I am here; you will keep me) are surprisingly supported by some locals, unrelated by tribe or genes. They are so caring that they expect other people’s hard-earned money to provide whatever the asylum seeker wants. Recently, one of the latter specified the ‘boob’ enhancement she sought. Do these local supporters see these arrivals as becoming economically viable within a reasonable period, without being a long-term financial burden on the nation?
Perhaps, all accepted asylum seekers might be treated as are entrants from New Zealand – no welfare support. That is, look after yourself during a 3-year temporary-visa period. Against that, recently an employed Asian reportedly lost his job in Australia. He must have been on a temporary employment visa, because he promptly sought asylum. He received cash from the official welfare service, supplemented by support from a community welfare agency, and the communities from 2 different churches! He continued to complain about his inadequate funds.
This is reportedly the most expensive country in the world. It is, I believe, the most generous country in the world. For how long will we sheep accept being as shorn we are for this generosity? As well, the processing of asylum seekers remaining in Australia can give cause for concern from the viewpoint of national responsibility. I am not aware that the official agencies look into the national interest when assessing unidentifiable applicants for asylum, or when reviewing the decision making in cases of rejection.
Indeed, I do wonder whether the High Court (the highest court in Australia), as well as the lower courts involved in hearing apparently unending appeals (seemingly comparable to Indonesia) go beyond the wording of the law (but not necessarily its intent) to look at the national interest (that should not be too difficult to define).
The following extracts are from my book ‘Musings at Death’s Door.’ (ebook from Amazon Kindle @$US 2.99).
“Asylum seekers should also not be kept in detention where they are provided with full board, education, health and welfare services, we are told. But we are not told who will house, feed, and medicate them were they to be free to roam all over the country while they await a decision … … “
“The Anglo-Australian supporters of the boat arrivals claim that all asylum seekers are genuine refugees (how would they know that?) and that they have all suffered trauma and torture (anyone with any evidence?). They seek speedy decisions in spite of the reality that almost all arrivals have torn up their identity papers and other documentation which got them to Indonesia. What does that behaviour suggest? That there is an intent not to be honest? … … “
“There is another moral problem. How could anyone risk the life of a child or one’s womenfolk on one of the asylum seeker boats? Is it then the case that the journey is not as dangerous as it is said to be? … … “
“Who are these modern boat arrivals? Those who hold valid passports issued by their country of nationality, who can afford the airfare to Indonesia, who pay a ‘snake-head’ (people smuggler) a large sum of money (according to the media about US$10,000 per head) for a place on a fishing boat, who hand over their mobile phones to the snake-head, who tear up their identification papers, and who seek to be intercepted by Australia’s border patrols as soon as possible. … … “
“Could those travellers who destroy their identification and travel papers and seek acceptance as refugees when intercepted by border control be asked what it is they are hiding? This is an issue of morality. … … “
“Some of the supporters have since argued that anyone who wants a better life and gets here one way or the other should be allowed to stay. Since the bulk of mankind would seek to be refugees from the hardships of life, are these sup¬porters saying that if you have the money, you can enter Australia freely by the back door? … … “
“Does not the irrational behaviour of many asylum seekers while well fed, comfortably housed, and medicated as needed in detention, suggest that they may have arrived with mental health problems? … … “
“It is too facile to blame detention or its duration, when it is the asylum seekers with no documentation who are responsible for the delay. Could not a little over-acting also be beneficial? Is it not known worldwide that lengthy detention, probably offshore, is part of the process? … … “
“One can only ask to be considered for refugee status, were one to provide necessary evidence. Currently, it is Australia which has to prove that the claimant is not a refugee as defined by the UN Convention … … “
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 