Once upon a time – and this is not a fairy tale – Australian immigration officials based overseas assessed applicants for immigration as to whether they could settle in their new home successfully. Immigrants were to benefit the nation. Why else take them? Alternatively, the vast intake necessitated by needed development would, if not selected carefully, de-stabilise the host nation; and the government was not looking for cheap labour.
Selected immigrants sought to better themselves, and settled in successfully – with initial support from Good Neighbour Councils of Anglo-Australians. Very expensive settlement services were then provided by the government. I was responsible for their implementation, sequentially over the years, of all of them (bar the English language program). That is how I was able to write ‘Destiny Will Out,’ which demonstrated how well our migrants were looked after.
These settlers accepted Australia’s institutional framework, and adapted themselves to the prevailing (and evolving) social mores. No ‘ghettos’ were formed. Imported tribal tensions and sectarian prejudices were quietly nipped in the bud.
Now we have immigrants who want the host nation to amend its laws to suit their religio-cultural preferences. As well, whether they arrive by boat without entry visas or by air with visas, many demand a right to stay, to move freely, and to be supported by taxpaying Australia. Quaintly, some ‘single-issue’ politicians, and ‘legal eagles’ seeking to open up the entry door, supported by caring (but financially irresponsible) people, support free entry!
Thus, secure national borders and the financial self-sufficiency of immigrants – the requirements of honest, tax-paying residents – move backstage against the ethos of entitlement to other people’s money, and the demands of the welfare industry. An indication of undesirable outcomes: a ‘snakehead’ (people smuggler), granted asylum as a refugee, reportedly went back to Asia to continue his business, while his wife was given public housing ahead of a long waiting list of residents.
A critical observer might look askance at the laborious process of assessing asylum claims, and the unemployment record of accepted ‘refugees.’ For example, a well-respected reporter wrote that, 5 years after acceptance, only 9% of Afghans were employed. But then, our asylum seekers may be traders, ‘middlemen,’ and suchlike, rather than factory or rural workers.
What is the benefit to the nation of those who will seek and live on welfare (an attraction in Europe as well) for years? Some of the jihadists now overseas were reportedly on Australian welfare. Ask those whose taxes are being handed out so freely, not UN officials, spokesmen for NGOs spruiking ‘human rights,’ or those local politicians who participate in ‘pork-barrelling.’
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 