Asylum seekers, especially by boat, cost the Australian taxpayers an incredible amount of money and, reportedly, receive little gratitude for acceptance. Their supporters complain vociferously about the necessary due process. When it is reported that, 5 years after acceptance, more than 90% of the Afghans remain on welfare … … ! Are we taxpayers just milking cows? Who are these supporters?
Why do they choose to support thousands of foreigners they do not know, who insist that they have a right to remain in Australia after obtaining entry by the back door; that is, without an entry visa? Worse still, 90% or more reportedly destroy all their other papers, so raising these issues: who and what are they; and what of their morality in destroying their papers?
There was a supporter who claimed on t.v. that the asylum seekers had all suffered torture and trauma; but did anyone ask how he knows? Then there are those who say that, since the numbers are small (like 20,000 per year?), we should take them all, and let them live in the community; but had they been asked what these unlawful arrivals would live on? An asylum seeker is not a refugee until accepted.
Then there are the pro-bono lawyers who work assiduously to have rejected seekers entitled to appeal after appeal (a right most of us cannot afford); but, who pays the high court fees? Do these lawyers keep finding new facts to put to the courts? One would, of course, expect these lawyers to present ‘arguable’ cases to the courts, in order to obtain more entry rights in the future, through the precedents set thereby. Then, were these lawyers involved in actions by those accepted to sue the authorities for inadequate care while their claims were being assessed?
Single-issue politicians have also entered the fray to support easy entry by boat; but I do not recall any of them dealing with the key issue: Who are the seekers they support in principle, when they (reportedly) can have 4 names and 3 dates of birth (see the Weekend Australian, 8-9 June 2013)? Apart from identity, what of national security, criminality, mental health, a necessary willingness to accept Australia’s institutions and social mores, and to integrate into the nation without being a financial burden?
I find these supporters, except perhaps the lawyers, intriguing. I would ask them ‘What are the national interest implications of an open-door asylum seeker policy? Surely, the political supporters should be able to respond in a professional manner.
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 