As climate change creates political instability and drought, the stream of refugees will increase from a trickle to a flood. All countries that want to preserve themselves as sovereign entities may be forced to resort to a similar policy of cruelty, and sooner rather than later.
2
Australia has had a very long history of fear of non-Whites. Until the 1960s Asians were not allowed to immigrate to Australia. The irony always was that Australians recognized their need to people and allowed their bigotry to get in the way of their need for people.
6
There are poor, desperate, starving people in the world. There always have been. There always will be. 60 years ago, the world population was estimated to be 2 billion; now it's over 7 billion and that number will continue to grow until disease or starvation or nuclear war intervenes. In the meantime we will choke on our own pollution, congestion and social conflict. Possibly Australians see the chaos and conflict Europeans have imported to their home countries in order to demonstrate their generosity. If Australians are wise, they will know that nothing they can do about the refugee crisis will reduce human suffering in the long run. The price for short term compassion is long term cruelty for Australians. They would do well to resist pressure from foreign countries and institutions like The New York Times to just open their borders.
24
The Anglosphere (including Australia, USA, U.K and countries they have saved in world wars) must be doing something right because the rest of the world all want to move there. The immigration crisis is not the fault of these countries, so quit blaming them. Aim your ire at the religions and governments who overpopulated their own areas.
30
Who are you, Roger, to demand that Australia effectively change its national character by welcoming these refugees?
You know well that if they do, the word gets out and the island continent will be flooded with migrants. Migrants who all too often don't assimilate well, whose birthrate is many times that of the Australians, whose religion has not yet dealt with its own vicious strains of intolerance.
To make an analogy between the current migrants from the Middle East and those from Vietnam decades ago in disingenuous at best. How about a little more intellectual honesty on the long-term problems of assimilating large influxes of Muslims in the developed nations?
You know well that if they do, the word gets out and the island continent will be flooded with migrants. Migrants who all too often don't assimilate well, whose birthrate is many times that of the Australians, whose religion has not yet dealt with its own vicious strains of intolerance.
To make an analogy between the current migrants from the Middle East and those from Vietnam decades ago in disingenuous at best. How about a little more intellectual honesty on the long-term problems of assimilating large influxes of Muslims in the developed nations?
34
Australia has the right to admit - or deny - any individual to the country. Our daughter, an American, has lived there for several years. Getting a permanent visa was costly and time consuming. It took nearly a year to obtain and a physical and US background check for a criminal record was required. Temporary visas can be obtained a little easier, but are good for only one year, but are renewable.
The Aussie government is right to discourage illegal boat migration. The humans tragedy of possibly thousands of people dying on less-than-seaworthy craft navigating hundreds of miles of open Pacific should be avoided at all costs.
Mr. Cohen should not try to inflict his ideas of 'fair immigration' on a country he doesn't live in.
The Aussie government is right to discourage illegal boat migration. The humans tragedy of possibly thousands of people dying on less-than-seaworthy craft navigating hundreds of miles of open Pacific should be avoided at all costs.
Mr. Cohen should not try to inflict his ideas of 'fair immigration' on a country he doesn't live in.
16
The risks of getting it wrong, on the migration crisis playing out all over the globe, are similar to getting it wrong on climate change. It is irreversible. If the naysayers (running just about 99.5% in NY TIMES comments) are correct, we have placed the next generations in grave peril, as dysfunctional primitive cultures overwhelm the advanced western cultures built up over centuries. The advanced cultures are the only hope for solving other pressing global problems. This mass migration is the inevitable result of unsustainable population growth. There is no pretty way out.
14
I don't think we should let in refugees by boat. I think the deaths we had at sea were entirely avoidable. The solution was not to imprison people on small islands in the Pacific. The solution was to set up processing centres in Indonesia. We should have given people firm deadlines - 30 days to do first round processing, 60 days for ASIO/ASUS checks, and 180 days for resettlement. The biggest problem for refugees, why they take the risk on the sea, is the WAITING. People can't work in Indonesia - the indo govt forbids it. So they wait on the UN list for years and get impatient as they see their life and their childrens' futures ebbing away. They take a gamble.
Australia can take more refugees. We need to. There's a whole lot of small towns in rural NSW that have declining populations that can host and would welcome hard working refugees from arid nations! (except Tamworth, because they had a problem with 5 families of Africans because they're racist up there!)
Australia can take more refugees. We need to. There's a whole lot of small towns in rural NSW that have declining populations that can host and would welcome hard working refugees from arid nations! (except Tamworth, because they had a problem with 5 families of Africans because they're racist up there!)
4
This is nothing but cheap emotional manipulation. There are far-right or "alt-right" websites like the Daily Stormer claiming Jews are involved in a vast, conspiracy to destroy the ethnic integrity of European societies by promoting replacement-level immigration. Obviously this is paranoid nonsense, but I'm afraid articles like this will just serve as grist to that particular mill.
7
Nations are sovereign and have every right to control precisely, down to the individual, plant, animal, or mechanism that enters within the 12 nautical mile limit of their shore, and if they should find that they do not desire those people to set foot on their soil, ensure they do not. How is this even a subject of discussion?
Our national choice to forgo our right as a sovereign nation to exert control over who enters our country confers no obligation on others to do the same. As a matter of fact, our choice to not control immigration may well be serving as a cautionary tale to others. The wisest learn from the mistakes of others and the most foolish fail to learn from their own.
Our national choice to forgo our right as a sovereign nation to exert control over who enters our country confers no obligation on others to do the same. As a matter of fact, our choice to not control immigration may well be serving as a cautionary tale to others. The wisest learn from the mistakes of others and the most foolish fail to learn from their own.
22
Why do we persist in presuming to tell other countries how to treat peoples who illegally cross their borders? We can't even solve our own immigration crisis!
Yes, we have a moral obligation to help people who are in distress from whatever scourge of humanity - war, crop failure, global warming - but no one has any right - universal, inalienable or otherwise - to just barge into another country and share the wealth that belongs to its own citizens.
Chevy
South Hadley
Yes, we have a moral obligation to help people who are in distress from whatever scourge of humanity - war, crop failure, global warming - but no one has any right - universal, inalienable or otherwise - to just barge into another country and share the wealth that belongs to its own citizens.
Chevy
South Hadley
23
"Yes, we have a moral obligation to help people who are in distress from whatever scourge of humanity..."
Reread the article. That's exactly what's going on here.
Reread the article. That's exactly what's going on here.
5
Australia is the most racist & Islamophobic white country remaining, with its white Australian policy.
There are enough resources to welcome maybe 5 to 10 million pious Muslim young men.
Think how this will improve the diversity of the island!
If more of the girls there donned the burka, that would go a great distance to eliminating the skin cancer epidemic on the beaches of the Gold Coast.
There are enough resources to welcome maybe 5 to 10 million pious Muslim young men.
Think how this will improve the diversity of the island!
If more of the girls there donned the burka, that would go a great distance to eliminating the skin cancer epidemic on the beaches of the Gold Coast.
3
If it is so racist and Islamophobic, why do so many non-white followers of Islam want to get in? If they stay home, they will not be subject to the conditions at the processing centers, nor will they have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune thrown at them by the evil Australians.
12
Wait, Roger. Why aren't you criticizing Iran and Afghanistan, places where life is so bad that rather than return to them 2 of Australia's failed border crashers lit themselves on fire?
How is this Australia's fault? Japan and many other countries have the same policy of accepting no border crashers but never hear a critical word.
The real fault is with the societies, virtually all of them Muslim, from which people find it necessary to flee. Get on THEIR cases. Don't be shy in writing about their racist, sectarian, intolerant, incompetent and kleptocratic elites.
But spare the Australians. They don't want racism, sectariansism, intolerance, or kleptomania in their house any more than you want it in yours.
How is this Australia's fault? Japan and many other countries have the same policy of accepting no border crashers but never hear a critical word.
The real fault is with the societies, virtually all of them Muslim, from which people find it necessary to flee. Get on THEIR cases. Don't be shy in writing about their racist, sectarian, intolerant, incompetent and kleptocratic elites.
But spare the Australians. They don't want racism, sectariansism, intolerance, or kleptomania in their house any more than you want it in yours.
22
It is a horrible issue, and while I see the Australian side, at the same time, if refugees are dying then Australia or another country has little choice but to take them in. At the very least, take them in and be part of a world coalition to stabilize their home country.
1
Roger,
Russia has more than double the square mileage of Australia, is far more bountiful with water, and is projected to be a net beneficiary of climate change as Siberia warms. Surely this vast, thinly populated country could do better to attract the harmless refugees who merely wish to turn gray and drab Russia into a multicultural paradise! And I am sure that the Russians would welcome them with open arms.
Russia has more than double the square mileage of Australia, is far more bountiful with water, and is projected to be a net beneficiary of climate change as Siberia warms. Surely this vast, thinly populated country could do better to attract the harmless refugees who merely wish to turn gray and drab Russia into a multicultural paradise! And I am sure that the Russians would welcome them with open arms.
22
The world is awash with people fleeing from poverty and war, seeking safety and prosperity elsewhere. With many countries producing children far in excess of their ability to feed, educate and employ those millions within their own borders this trend will be with us for decades to come whether we like it or not. Yet asking other countries to do the job for them at the expense of the recipient's taxpayers is unlikely to fly. North America is fortunate to be protected to East and West by large oceans, hard to cross. Europe's willingness to open it's gates was exhausted in the space of a hectic 6 months the results of which look likely to move the continent to new political constellations with anti-immigrant sentiment growing. Geographically it is nearly impossible to seal off Europe, so the right wing will grow. Australia is one of the largest destinations in the world for LEGAL immigration, taking migrants of THEIR CHOICE from all over the world. It is their perfect right to insist that the only way that you get into the country is by joining the queue and submitting to government vetting. After all it was what the US was doing until Congress felt that they had to ban all Syrian refugees from these shores
13
The best way to fix any refugee crisis is to stabilize and grow the countries where the refugees are becoming refugees from. Instead we're only treating however imperfectly, a symptom, without addressing the cause. And if the numbers of refugees in Europe right now, seeking escape from a war zone are proving too much, remember that they are only the harbinger of refugees to come as climate change affects more and more regions of the globe to an extent of forcing people to move. Survival is first, no matter who you are or where you're from.
That we should afford each other as much human dignity as possible is the ideal, but often flies in the face of local and political realities. Still, we must try.
That we should afford each other as much human dignity as possible is the ideal, but often flies in the face of local and political realities. Still, we must try.
18
Patrick - you put into words my thoughts. Treat the disease - NOT the symptoms. It seems that particular notion has not reached those who are supposed to be able to think of these things.
4
So they won't mind if we waltz in, educate women and girls, and make birth control freely available? Who knew?
9
Given the chance Australians behave as the thick-skulled colonial criminals, and now they are displaying this with all its glory.
3
Conservative supporters in Europe and American, in Australia, what do you want? Tell us in plain language of what you are afraid! Members of each extended family include these kinds of voters. Is it the darker skin color, the broken English, the religion of the asylum seekers. Can a conservative actually allow himself to exchange positions, for even a moment, with the disenfranchised, those driven from their country as a result of violence and hatred.
Tell us which church you attend or which political mouthpiece you ascribe so that we readers can visit and listen to in order to attempt to gain some semblance of your understandings.
What has contemporary, and often reactionary political and social philosophy done to increase world peace, to promote a just society in Europe, America and Australia?
I am at a loss to explain such behaviors, can another reader explain?
Tell us which church you attend or which political mouthpiece you ascribe so that we readers can visit and listen to in order to attempt to gain some semblance of your understandings.
What has contemporary, and often reactionary political and social philosophy done to increase world peace, to promote a just society in Europe, America and Australia?
I am at a loss to explain such behaviors, can another reader explain?
2
Roger, Australia has a relatively small population and does what they feel they need to do to protect themselves. Roger, feel free to bring in 1000 refugees into your own home to stay indefinitely before lecturing others, eh. I will pitch in sleeping bags.
17
There are a lot of references to women being raped. Apparently, in order to prevent these rapes, Australia should let the rapists loose in its towns. Americans probably don't see anything wrong with this (what fun! It will be just like university again) but to the rest of us it's unappealing. Ask the Northern Europeans how their first New Year's Eve in the company of their new guests was. Not much fun.
13
The right wing movement is a global movement. We should study history to see what other eras it mirrors.
2
You hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph, but you came to the wrong conclusion. Humans, to the extent that there is still some humanity left in us, are nothing more than the accumulation of data.
I think physicists would agree, the surveillance state would agree, my TV would agree, geneticists would agree, advertisers would agree, psychologists would agree, our corporate overlords would agree, our politicians would agree, the internet and our computers would most certainly agree, our insurance companies would agree, the TSA, CIA, FBI, NSA and all the compartments of Homeland Security would agree, et cetera ad nauseum.
Bob Seeger lamented: I feel like a number, I'm not a number, dammit I'm a man. I'm not so sure anymore. All signs point to the contrary. It would seem that Elvis has left the building and there will be no encore. I think I agree with you and feel bad for all these refugees drifting aimlessly around an increasingly unaccepting world, but I better do a quick survey on Facebook to see how many hits I get before I solidify my opinion on the matter.
I think physicists would agree, the surveillance state would agree, my TV would agree, geneticists would agree, advertisers would agree, psychologists would agree, our corporate overlords would agree, our politicians would agree, the internet and our computers would most certainly agree, our insurance companies would agree, the TSA, CIA, FBI, NSA and all the compartments of Homeland Security would agree, et cetera ad nauseum.
Bob Seeger lamented: I feel like a number, I'm not a number, dammit I'm a man. I'm not so sure anymore. All signs point to the contrary. It would seem that Elvis has left the building and there will be no encore. I think I agree with you and feel bad for all these refugees drifting aimlessly around an increasingly unaccepting world, but I better do a quick survey on Facebook to see how many hits I get before I solidify my opinion on the matter.
1
AUSTRALIA'S GITMO OR ABU GHRAIB Conflating refugees attempting to escape unlivable conditions by treating them as the worst of the worst, a term reserved for Al Qaeda operatives after the 9/11 attack, is uncivilized, inhumane and unworthy of Australia. Especially since it is short on agricultural labor, it has shifted to a xenophobic position that is passingly odd for a nation of immigrants. I guess the PR image of Aussies as laid back, good natured, friendly and generous is meant only to attract tourist dollars, since refugees are clearly not welcome. Is there hope that the inhuman treatment of refugees will end soon? Do the citizens of Australia truly support the offshore processing? Or are there voices of dissent that challenge the inhumanity of the illegal policy and would prefer to be fair minded and humane. Alas, from what I read, it looks like reactionaries and anti-humanitarians have prevailed with offshore processing. Let's hope that the tide changes and Australia is more welcoming. After all, it was originally a penal colony for Britain. If Australia managed to form a vibrant, modern democracy springing from those roots, surely it can bring refugees along toward their role as a free, welcoming nation.
2
You may want to get out a world globe and take a peek. Now, how many safe countries have these economic refugees passed to get to Australia?? Why have they bypassed so many safe places to get to Australia?? 1. Welfare. Australia, the land of the free ride. 2. To get to the best country on earth? bloody oath ! In your own agenda driven biased text, you write that women are raped on nauru. Are these rapists meant to be injected into the australian population? NO ! You write that a person set themselves on fire. Do we want people like this in Australia? NO ! America are going to build a wall. GOOD. We have a wall of islands and we WILL use them !!
9
Australia's actions on self-proclaimed refugees are not America's business.
Likewise, America's actions on self-proclaimed refugees are not the business of other countries.
Inveterate one-worlders wave "refugee" claims as a magic wand to promote massive immigration.
Destination countries have every right to limit inflow, in numbers, by qualifications and by procedures.
Why do self-proclaimed Somali refugees have some kind of right to immigrate into Australia. What's wrong with Egypt? Or Kenya? or Ethiopia?
Why do self-proclaimed Iranian refugees have some kind of right t immigrate into Australia? What's wrong with Turkey? or Pakistan? or Turkmenistan?
The answer, of course, belies the refugee claims:
namely, those countries are not as attractive as Australia.
Likewise, America's actions on self-proclaimed refugees are not the business of other countries.
Inveterate one-worlders wave "refugee" claims as a magic wand to promote massive immigration.
Destination countries have every right to limit inflow, in numbers, by qualifications and by procedures.
Why do self-proclaimed Somali refugees have some kind of right to immigrate into Australia. What's wrong with Egypt? Or Kenya? or Ethiopia?
Why do self-proclaimed Iranian refugees have some kind of right t immigrate into Australia? What's wrong with Turkey? or Pakistan? or Turkmenistan?
The answer, of course, belies the refugee claims:
namely, those countries are not as attractive as Australia.
8
The people of Australia are not responsible for all the ills of the world.
Those that illegally enter their country are breaking the law. The people of Australia have a right to accept them or send them off.
Are these desperate people? I guess so- but they would be desperate anywhere.
These people could save their children if they put them up for adoption- but they will not. See it is not really about fleeing violence or survival- it is about economics.
These folks want to make money. I get it- I empathize. But Western societies are not responsible for the economic health of 5-6 billion people.
The pie is not getting any bigger- the more people the West attempts to absorb- and most of these economic migrants will never assimilate- the smaller each of our slice of pie gets. You cannot cut something into smaller and smaller pieces indefinitely.
There are so many poor and desperate people because the poor and the desperate have too many children. They must, and need, to solve their own problems- problems that they have, for the most part, created for themselves.
Those that illegally enter their country are breaking the law. The people of Australia have a right to accept them or send them off.
Are these desperate people? I guess so- but they would be desperate anywhere.
These people could save their children if they put them up for adoption- but they will not. See it is not really about fleeing violence or survival- it is about economics.
These folks want to make money. I get it- I empathize. But Western societies are not responsible for the economic health of 5-6 billion people.
The pie is not getting any bigger- the more people the West attempts to absorb- and most of these economic migrants will never assimilate- the smaller each of our slice of pie gets. You cannot cut something into smaller and smaller pieces indefinitely.
There are so many poor and desperate people because the poor and the desperate have too many children. They must, and need, to solve their own problems- problems that they have, for the most part, created for themselves.
12
Mr Cohen is ignoring the elephant in the room. If these refugees were from countries such as China or India there would be much less angst from Australians. The fact is these refugees are from Muslim countries on the whole and the average Aussie worries that we are importing problems that otherwise we wouldn't have. It is not racism by any stretch it is a cultural/religious prejudice. Perhaps history will relegate this prejudice to history (I hope so) but in the current environment it is not unreasonable that people are cautious.
6
Australia has little to be ashamed of. I'm not a fan of the "black armband" view of history. But there have been some shameful incidents as late as the 1920s involving massacres like those on a larger scale in the southern US.
This policy though - it's bad. Really, really "concentration camp" "nacht und nebel" bad. Refusing to let genuine refugees go from Nauru to anywhere that isn't a 3rd world hellhole, even though they've offered to take them. Deliberately making conditions so bad they are a "fate worse than death" to discourage deaths at sea.
The NYT article is accurate. I wish it were not. Worse, both major parties are complicit in it, it's not Left vs Right.
This policy though - it's bad. Really, really "concentration camp" "nacht und nebel" bad. Refusing to let genuine refugees go from Nauru to anywhere that isn't a 3rd world hellhole, even though they've offered to take them. Deliberately making conditions so bad they are a "fate worse than death" to discourage deaths at sea.
The NYT article is accurate. I wish it were not. Worse, both major parties are complicit in it, it's not Left vs Right.
3
No mention of the 1200 deaths at sea before the policy was implemented. A casual mention of a fear it might be like number of drownings in Mediterranean. Newsflash - it already was. That's why it had to stop. Also no mention of previous left wing govt having 2000 children locked up before. V biased article.
2
It's quite possible that Australia saw what was happening in the US and decided to build its own "wall" to protect against being overrun with illegal immigrants. The fact that Australia is geographically big doesn't mean it can absorb an unlimited flow of migrants. Most of the country is desert, unsuitable for human habitation. Australia has the right to determine its own immigration policies as every country does. Those policies and procedures are set forth on its website. That doesn't excuse mistreatment of people trying to immigrate.
9
Cohen tries the rhetorical trick of calling "vast and thinly populated," implying there is lots of room for refugees. If Cohen really believes that (he probably doesn't), then he doesn't understand the climate of Australia and how its desert and near-desert areas will quickly expand under global warming
Cohen would do better to examine the deaths and deprivation in the United States for-profit immigration holding system.
Cohen would do better to examine the deaths and deprivation in the United States for-profit immigration holding system.
10
As an Australian I find the current 'solution' to be far from just, fair or humane and cringe when I read about how some people are being treated by us.
That said, I do not know of anyone who has a just and fair solution that would actually work.
All I hear are the extremes of either 'just let them all in' or 'keep them all out'. No real solutions. Millions around the world are fleeing violence and suffering and willing to take huge risks to do so. What do we do with them? Abandoning them is wrong but you cannot simply open the border, let them all in and expect it to just "work fine".
Australia is a desert continent that already is pushing its environmental limits with water and productive land. How many refugees should we take? Where do we put them? Our cities are already sprawling out over huge areas including much of the most productive agricultural areas around the east coast. What happens if we hit the point at which we think we should stop and more keep coming?
Refugees are not just an Australian problem, they are a world wide problem, a symptom of war and terror and all countries (including us) need to be working to stop the causes, not the symptoms. Which is supposedly why we have a UN. Pity it is so toothless.
Rhetoric and criticism is easy. Anyone have any real answers?
That said, I do not know of anyone who has a just and fair solution that would actually work.
All I hear are the extremes of either 'just let them all in' or 'keep them all out'. No real solutions. Millions around the world are fleeing violence and suffering and willing to take huge risks to do so. What do we do with them? Abandoning them is wrong but you cannot simply open the border, let them all in and expect it to just "work fine".
Australia is a desert continent that already is pushing its environmental limits with water and productive land. How many refugees should we take? Where do we put them? Our cities are already sprawling out over huge areas including much of the most productive agricultural areas around the east coast. What happens if we hit the point at which we think we should stop and more keep coming?
Refugees are not just an Australian problem, they are a world wide problem, a symptom of war and terror and all countries (including us) need to be working to stop the causes, not the symptoms. Which is supposedly why we have a UN. Pity it is so toothless.
Rhetoric and criticism is easy. Anyone have any real answers?
33
We know where the illegal traffickers originate from. We know where their cargo originates from. Between those 2 places you put a processing centre. Labor tried with Malaysia, but that solution was pooh-poohed by the mob that now rule (as opposed to govern) us.
2
Whoa, having checked Rogers history on Wikipedia (doubtful as that might be) I'm surprised that someone as apparently as professional as he appears could write such garbage. I assume he has mistakenly accepted an extreme left view from what he believed to be a reliable source without adequate checks to arrive at his position.
No mention of th 1271 dead in the crossing prior to controls being reinstated.
No mention of all the camps that have closed. No mention that all but about 10 children are now out of detention. No mention that no more deaths have occurred since the policy change. No mention of no more boat arrivals since the change. No mention that along with Canada Australia has the highest refugee intake per capita of any other country. No mention that notwithstanding the current level of intake as aforementioned Australia has added a further 12000 from Syria in addition to its status as the highest per capita intake country.
None of these points have been raised by those commenters who concur or go even further with their remarks. They either don't know or more likely are pushing an extreme green left agenda with no reliance on observable truths.
More is expected of mainstream journos and their publishers in my view.
No mention of th 1271 dead in the crossing prior to controls being reinstated.
No mention of all the camps that have closed. No mention that all but about 10 children are now out of detention. No mention that no more deaths have occurred since the policy change. No mention of no more boat arrivals since the change. No mention that along with Canada Australia has the highest refugee intake per capita of any other country. No mention that notwithstanding the current level of intake as aforementioned Australia has added a further 12000 from Syria in addition to its status as the highest per capita intake country.
None of these points have been raised by those commenters who concur or go even further with their remarks. They either don't know or more likely are pushing an extreme green left agenda with no reliance on observable truths.
More is expected of mainstream journos and their publishers in my view.
8
One wonders if each country is entitled to establish an upper limit on immigration....legal and illegal. For example, one would ask "human rights advocates" what is the maximum number of immigrants the US should accept?
There are apparently over 40 million immigrants, legal and illegal in the US now. Is that enough? If not, why don't we utilize our resources and sweep the Pacific, gathering up all who wish to come and set them free inside our borders? Why burden the Aussies?
There are apparently over 40 million immigrants, legal and illegal in the US now. Is that enough? If not, why don't we utilize our resources and sweep the Pacific, gathering up all who wish to come and set them free inside our borders? Why burden the Aussies?
3
One sentence in one comment seems to sum up a lot of the comments here:
"These refugees have no rights, were not invited and are not welcome."
Reminds me of Justice Taney in the 1857 Dred Scott decision:
"[Blacks are] so far inferior that they [have] no rights which the white man [is] bound to respect."
Seems that Americans have finally and completely abandoned the notion that
"all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."
Funny, I was taught in school way back when that the principle, at least, upon which the United States was founded was that all people have rights, that human rights are universal, and not determined by the laws of particular countries.
Well, I guess nobody really believes that anymore.
So Justice Taney and the slaveholders, and the Nazis with their extermination camps were all right after all: there are some people who have no rights.
"These refugees have no rights, were not invited and are not welcome."
Reminds me of Justice Taney in the 1857 Dred Scott decision:
"[Blacks are] so far inferior that they [have] no rights which the white man [is] bound to respect."
Seems that Americans have finally and completely abandoned the notion that
"all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."
Funny, I was taught in school way back when that the principle, at least, upon which the United States was founded was that all people have rights, that human rights are universal, and not determined by the laws of particular countries.
Well, I guess nobody really believes that anymore.
So Justice Taney and the slaveholders, and the Nazis with their extermination camps were all right after all: there are some people who have no rights.
3
A refugee may have a right to a safe space. But a refugee has no right to a safe space his own choosing, let alone to a safe space in a country of his own choosing. Governments who insist on creating incentives to immigrants to make hazardous journeys while lining the pockets of the people-smugglers are behaving immorally.
6
While there is a human right to asylum for those who are in imminent danger, there is no human right to settle wherever you want.
Nearly all of those who try to get into Australia on a refugee ticket had to cross a number of safe places and countries and are therefore not refugees but mere migrants.
So Australia is right to make certain that its border stays safe and closed to those who are merely trying to get into the country by the disguise of being a refugee while in fact being an illegal migrant.
Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and many other countries do not border with Australia so these illegal migrants need to stick to the same rules like any other migrant, make an offer for the country to get approved for immigration or stay out.
Australia is right in what it is doing.
If all those countries which are now the dream target for an army of illegal migrants would act the same way Austria, Germany and Sweden have done in the past years and take them all in, these countries would go down just like Sweden is going down now.
Changing local culture, destroying much of their welfare systems and eliminating Jewish societies in these parts while establishing no go zones and Sharia controlled parallel societies living on taxpayers expenses in a system they never wanted to be part of in the first place.
Quite frankly, there is no reason to criticise Australia as long as one does not have an alternative solution, like e.g. to take care of a refugee in your own home.
Nearly all of those who try to get into Australia on a refugee ticket had to cross a number of safe places and countries and are therefore not refugees but mere migrants.
So Australia is right to make certain that its border stays safe and closed to those who are merely trying to get into the country by the disguise of being a refugee while in fact being an illegal migrant.
Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and many other countries do not border with Australia so these illegal migrants need to stick to the same rules like any other migrant, make an offer for the country to get approved for immigration or stay out.
Australia is right in what it is doing.
If all those countries which are now the dream target for an army of illegal migrants would act the same way Austria, Germany and Sweden have done in the past years and take them all in, these countries would go down just like Sweden is going down now.
Changing local culture, destroying much of their welfare systems and eliminating Jewish societies in these parts while establishing no go zones and Sharia controlled parallel societies living on taxpayers expenses in a system they never wanted to be part of in the first place.
Quite frankly, there is no reason to criticise Australia as long as one does not have an alternative solution, like e.g. to take care of a refugee in your own home.
31
"Sweden going down"?? That's ridiculous. I have friends in Sweden who tell me many positive stories about communities in Sweden welcoming refugees, immigrants, people fleeing war. And, also, there are many church communities, and others in Australia, who are exactly doing what you say - taking refugees into their homes and communities, helping them assimilate.
2
... and what exactly is Singapore's position on asylum seekers?
1
Wow Roger Cohen, you fly into another country, pick up an issue which you demonstrate little understanding or historical context and then cast aspersions about entire nation. Both the Australian Labor and Liberal parties essentially have maintained the same policy of automatic detention with minor tweaks. How Australia came about to a policy of zero tolerance is complicated, but there is more to the story than Roger’s implication of xenophobia, though that card has undoubtedly been played in some instances. However, I agree that the current zero tolerance policy is wrongheaded, ignores Australia’s commitments to the Refugee convention, and thus those who have demonstrated a legitimate claim should be allowed to proceed to the mainland.
That being said, the international refugee system appears to be broken, and the main conversation should be how to fix it. Resolve this and the responses we are seeing in Europe, North America and the Asia Pacific will probably resolve themselves. Let’s stop placing the lives of these people into hands of unscrupulous traffickers who knowingly place these people on unseaworthy boats, cargo containers, closed trucks etc.… we already know what that looks like.
That being said, the international refugee system appears to be broken, and the main conversation should be how to fix it. Resolve this and the responses we are seeing in Europe, North America and the Asia Pacific will probably resolve themselves. Let’s stop placing the lives of these people into hands of unscrupulous traffickers who knowingly place these people on unseaworthy boats, cargo containers, closed trucks etc.… we already know what that looks like.
11
We should also focus our efforts and money into making their own countries habitable for them again, instead of our misguided "humanitarianism" which is only encouraging a mass emptying of those countries of their futures, of their young families, business owners, young men for military service, etc.
The left is always playing directly into the hands of the centre-right and the shadowy plans of global corporatists, who are probably slavering at the thought of moving into those countries, now emptied, ripe for re-colonization, and desperate for the business patronage . . .
And fueling rightwing populism as they do so. They just - will - not - listen.
The left is always playing directly into the hands of the centre-right and the shadowy plans of global corporatists, who are probably slavering at the thought of moving into those countries, now emptied, ripe for re-colonization, and desperate for the business patronage . . .
And fueling rightwing populism as they do so. They just - will - not - listen.
3
Nations with interests, however legitimate they may be, often fail to inject humanity in what inevitably are bureaucratic practices. While populous Europe and the U.S. can afford to accept millions of refugees, we still see concern there that their entry will attenuate culture, that their needs will compete with those of indigenous interests: how much more acute are those concerns likely to be in territories that are sparsely settled to start with?
The global refugee problem is acute but its implications are somber not just for those desperately on the move. To fully accept the hordes of disinherited, countries that do risk losing their cultural identities, if not in this generation then in the next. People understand this, and many of them support practices, even by ignoring them, that discourage the global osmotic wave of needy people looking for homes that they were unable to sustain where they were born.
Angela Merkel certainly can testify to what a welcoming attitude can do to the unanticipated hordes of those desperate to be welcomed: political destabilization. I understand Roger’s desire to see more humanity in a basically inhumane process not intended to encourage large-scale immigration of the desperate. But I think I also understand Australia.
We need to devise a solution to this pressing global problem that avoids the risk to cultures and priorities; or we’re not going to have ANY solution to the problem, and the human cost will be immense.
The global refugee problem is acute but its implications are somber not just for those desperately on the move. To fully accept the hordes of disinherited, countries that do risk losing their cultural identities, if not in this generation then in the next. People understand this, and many of them support practices, even by ignoring them, that discourage the global osmotic wave of needy people looking for homes that they were unable to sustain where they were born.
Angela Merkel certainly can testify to what a welcoming attitude can do to the unanticipated hordes of those desperate to be welcomed: political destabilization. I understand Roger’s desire to see more humanity in a basically inhumane process not intended to encourage large-scale immigration of the desperate. But I think I also understand Australia.
We need to devise a solution to this pressing global problem that avoids the risk to cultures and priorities; or we’re not going to have ANY solution to the problem, and the human cost will be immense.
9
You speak about the "unanticipated hordes" of refugees to be welcomed.
Certainly you are not referring to the Europeans who invaded the Americas, North and South, and Australia, along with many other parts of the World.
The British Empire had converted Australia to a huge Guantanamo for all its undesirable convicts.
Certainly you are not referring to the Europeans who invaded the Americas, North and South, and Australia, along with many other parts of the World.
The British Empire had converted Australia to a huge Guantanamo for all its undesirable convicts.
1
There policy is working, as evidenced by the fact that there are 1,350 illegal immigrants rather than 1,350,000. How many economic immigrants should Australia be expected to absorb?
25
As soon as South Korea, Israel and Japan open their doors as well as Hong Kong and the rest of the developed world then the West should take more. Other countries are free riders in this global crisis. It can't just be the US and Europe.
14
Actually, Israel has absorbed many more refugees (per population) than the US. Korea, Japan (and China) are the culprits if you want refuseniks!
1
Ah there you are again with the idea that Israel should open its doors to a group of people who are already contributing to the rise of anti-Semitism throughout Europe. But you knew that, didn't you? It is also the size of New Jersey.
Japan is so culturally apposite it is laughable to think of floods of migrants from the Middle East flooding in. Japan, unlike the stupid countries of Europe, is too interested in maintaining its ethnic culture and values.
The people who should be opening their doors are the rich Gulf States - yeah, let's whine about Israel instead of the miles of empty air conditioned tents in Saudi Arabia. Get over it already. Israel is not why the migrants are banging down the gates of the West.
Japan is so culturally apposite it is laughable to think of floods of migrants from the Middle East flooding in. Japan, unlike the stupid countries of Europe, is too interested in maintaining its ethnic culture and values.
The people who should be opening their doors are the rich Gulf States - yeah, let's whine about Israel instead of the miles of empty air conditioned tents in Saudi Arabia. Get over it already. Israel is not why the migrants are banging down the gates of the West.
2
This is a remarkably uninformed article and some simple facts show why. First, for more than 20 years Australia has been among the top 3 countries in the word in the number of refugees accepted for permanent resettlement (i.e. not just sitting in camps). Secondly, a person wanting to get to Australia by boat must first fly to Indonesia and then with others purchase a boat for a long one way journey to Australia. Every person arriving this way has been able to source a large amount of money to fund their journey. They are not the same as the more desperate and poor people from the camps in Africa and elsewhere from which Australia takes a large number of refugees each year for permanent resettlement. And whereas the people arriving by boat are predominantly young men, the refugees taken from camps also include large numbers of women and children. Thirdly, because of the long distances involved, up to 2,000 people had previously drowned while trying to come to Australia in this way which deaths have now ceased.
Australia has a highly moral and considered approach to making a contribution to addressing the global refugee problem. The reasonableness of the approach also means that it has support from the majority of Australians and is politically sustainable. Rather than mentioning even a single one of these circumstances, the opinion piece chooses the unfortunately well-trodden path of appealing to cheap and uninformed emotion.
Australia has a highly moral and considered approach to making a contribution to addressing the global refugee problem. The reasonableness of the approach also means that it has support from the majority of Australians and is politically sustainable. Rather than mentioning even a single one of these circumstances, the opinion piece chooses the unfortunately well-trodden path of appealing to cheap and uninformed emotion.
38
There are no valid excuses for treating people in the way that successive Australian governments are treating people in these detention centers. None. Every individual is important and valid. You can't just say that we will sacrifice few, actually hundreds, of people for the grater "good". taking this view is just a way of appeasing ones conscience. This fact that this action does not stand up to any form of scrutiny is highlighted by the governments legislating away peoples rights to free speech in whistleblowing on conditions in these detention centers.
3
Hey !
Australia has gun laws our libs love
and mandatory voting
paradise
-
and secure borders
= =
package deal
Australia has gun laws our libs love
and mandatory voting
paradise
-
and secure borders
= =
package deal
11
Australia may be thinly populated but it's also thinly habitable. It would not be a simple matter for Australia to deal with unchecked migration.
Our world is overpopulated and in some areas the ability of the land to support us is collapsing. (Look at the Middle East where most country's populations have quadrupled in the last 50 years.) What we are seeing now is a small sample of what is to come. Both in the number of migrants/refugees and in the scale of the efforts to stop them.
Our world is overpopulated and in some areas the ability of the land to support us is collapsing. (Look at the Middle East where most country's populations have quadrupled in the last 50 years.) What we are seeing now is a small sample of what is to come. Both in the number of migrants/refugees and in the scale of the efforts to stop them.
32
Roger
What a shellacking for a column!
Anyway, here's how we fix a complex and complicated situation. There are a number of elements involved. First, both major Australian political parties will have to agree on a bipartisan approach. Second, we want Indonesia's full commitment to help us keep the current "stop the boats" regime in place This would require strong anti-smuggler police operations in Indonesia. It would most certainly require constant and continuous combined Indonesian and Australian navy maritime patrols all along the Indonesian/Australian maritime border. We may have to pay Indonesia's costs for these operations.
To encourage Indonesia's participation Australia could agree to take all the UN approved refugees/asylum seekers currently in Indonesia - about 14,000 people. Australia could decide to take these people as refugees instead of the 12,000 Syrian refugees agreed to take from refugee camps in Jordan, etc. These policy initiatives in combination would allow both Australian potential government alternatives to close down the immigration detention centres in Nauru and PNG. The key to all of this though is Indonesian agreement to participate in wide spread anti-people smuggler operations, hopefully strongly supported by Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Without Indonesia's strong support as outlined above the "pull factors"
that would emerge from closing detention centres would complicate the calculations of Australian political decision makers.
What a shellacking for a column!
Anyway, here's how we fix a complex and complicated situation. There are a number of elements involved. First, both major Australian political parties will have to agree on a bipartisan approach. Second, we want Indonesia's full commitment to help us keep the current "stop the boats" regime in place This would require strong anti-smuggler police operations in Indonesia. It would most certainly require constant and continuous combined Indonesian and Australian navy maritime patrols all along the Indonesian/Australian maritime border. We may have to pay Indonesia's costs for these operations.
To encourage Indonesia's participation Australia could agree to take all the UN approved refugees/asylum seekers currently in Indonesia - about 14,000 people. Australia could decide to take these people as refugees instead of the 12,000 Syrian refugees agreed to take from refugee camps in Jordan, etc. These policy initiatives in combination would allow both Australian potential government alternatives to close down the immigration detention centres in Nauru and PNG. The key to all of this though is Indonesian agreement to participate in wide spread anti-people smuggler operations, hopefully strongly supported by Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Without Indonesia's strong support as outlined above the "pull factors"
that would emerge from closing detention centres would complicate the calculations of Australian political decision makers.
5
Frankly we are already committed to the most threatened people in Syria. Christians, Yatzis and Kurds.
3
Your solution makes a lot of sense Tony. Thankyou. Goodonya :)
As an island nation with enormous land mass, yet a small and dispersed population, Australia has an engrained perceived vulnerability. To an extent, this helps explain why there is a majority consensus that illegal boat arrivals are not tolerated.
Yes, Australia has clearly taken a hard line- but successive labor governments who have allowed refugees to land in Australia via rickety boats organised by people smugglers have been punished in the polls. Australians were rightly horrified by the near 1200 people who died at sea under the Rudd/Gillard Labor government- there have been no deaths under the subsequent Coalition government. These refugees pay unethical people smugglers thousands of dollars to board these dangerous boats, many Australians would rather not see our refugee intake be outsourced to these low-life individuals who have little care for the wellbeing of their 'clients,' they would rather see people who 'play by the rules' and 'wait their turn' be rewarded with refugee status rather than those who self-select and pay for the privilege.
Yes this is a complicated matter with quite marked human suffering no matter what political approach is taken to dealing with the issue. Both sides can claim that theirs is the more compassionate.
To my mind one that eradicates death at sea, restores fairness and sovereignty over who is chosen to settle here is the preferable option.
Yes, Australia has clearly taken a hard line- but successive labor governments who have allowed refugees to land in Australia via rickety boats organised by people smugglers have been punished in the polls. Australians were rightly horrified by the near 1200 people who died at sea under the Rudd/Gillard Labor government- there have been no deaths under the subsequent Coalition government. These refugees pay unethical people smugglers thousands of dollars to board these dangerous boats, many Australians would rather not see our refugee intake be outsourced to these low-life individuals who have little care for the wellbeing of their 'clients,' they would rather see people who 'play by the rules' and 'wait their turn' be rewarded with refugee status rather than those who self-select and pay for the privilege.
Yes this is a complicated matter with quite marked human suffering no matter what political approach is taken to dealing with the issue. Both sides can claim that theirs is the more compassionate.
To my mind one that eradicates death at sea, restores fairness and sovereignty over who is chosen to settle here is the preferable option.
41
This "enormous land mass" encompasses the oldest and least fertile soils on earth; desert or semi-arid land commonly known as the outback makes up by far the largest portion of land.
1
But it is not "fair" - or humane - to keep those people in those conditions on Nauru and Manus Island.
2
I agree with Rachel. Many of those incarcerated on Manus or Nauru are economic migrants, not refugees; they want a better life in Australia. There's nothing wrong with that desire, but economic migrants who attempt to gain illegal entry to Australia, displace genuine refugees in camps in such places as Turkey and Jordan. I support our government's policy on this matter, and can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if the bleeding hearts opened the borders.
It is not always possible to gain deep insights into a country's psyche by visiting its major city for a few days.
It is not always possible to gain deep insights into a country's psyche by visiting its major city for a few days.
33
Australia's treatment of the refugees is shameful. Despite being a signatory to the UN convention on refugees, the people on Nauru and Manus Island are being detained indefinitely as a deterrent to others.
10
Families on Nauru completely free , some are starting businesses.
The fit young men at Manus have entered Australian waters on a commercial vessel without a visa.
Both have a ticket home available anytime.
The fit young men at Manus have entered Australian waters on a commercial vessel without a visa.
Both have a ticket home available anytime.
2
The UN Convention is outdated, as are all the other refugee laws developed in the 1950s. Those agreements were never meant to risk facilitating the entire demographic character of Europe, Australia, and the US.
3
Is it correct to describe these people as refugees or more correct to say illegal economic migrants? By whom have these people been displaced, the way refugees normally are? I'm not saying some aren't refugees but we need to be careful about labels.
3
Guys, look up your family diaries, you will find someone who arrived on the shores of Australia to a different reception.
5
Most likely not illegally though.
4
We as a society are going to have to face the issue of refugees and make some truly tough choices.
No one wants to turn away those who are in need, having said that what is a country to do when there is a tidal wave of refugees who would/will overwhelm the resources of the country?
What if there are enough refugees that it would/will change the character of the country?
Is it proper to put conditions on accepting refugees? You can stay if you (insert your conditions here, learn the language, integrate into our culture, get jobs, etc). . .
Is it permissible to blockade the departing ports to prevent the tide of refugees from leaving a particular area? What are the blockading countries responsibility to the people trapped in the port city?
Is it permissible to depose a country's leadership to prevent a refugee crisis? Is this a case of 'you broke it, you own it'?
We are going to have to have answers to these and other tough questions, because there will be more mass migrations in the future.
No one wants to turn away those who are in need, having said that what is a country to do when there is a tidal wave of refugees who would/will overwhelm the resources of the country?
What if there are enough refugees that it would/will change the character of the country?
Is it proper to put conditions on accepting refugees? You can stay if you (insert your conditions here, learn the language, integrate into our culture, get jobs, etc). . .
Is it permissible to blockade the departing ports to prevent the tide of refugees from leaving a particular area? What are the blockading countries responsibility to the people trapped in the port city?
Is it permissible to depose a country's leadership to prevent a refugee crisis? Is this a case of 'you broke it, you own it'?
We are going to have to have answers to these and other tough questions, because there will be more mass migrations in the future.
9
Who cannot sympathize with the plight of 4/5 of the world's population. The population growth rate in the third world.....especially the Muslim world is up around 3% per year with women having 7 children per capita and that is with polygamy so some men are supposedly supporting many more and masses of poor men are squeezed out of society until they can get to Germany. It seems the Asylum proponents focus on the experience of the Jews and other minorities in WW2 and they are right in doing so. On the other hand does anyone really think this wave of asylum is anything more than a desperate attempt to get away from a grossly overpopulated environment. The USG has sent me to the mideast and central Asia a few times and I did not meet one native that did not want to get to the US or Europe.....But the big issue all the pundits refuse to discuss is population control. There is no way the birth rate in AFG, for example, or Iran, or Iraq or Africa can continue given the lack of water and basic resources. If the birth rate is 3% and the economic growth rate is 1% things just get worse and worse. What I would like Mr. Cohen and other pundits to do is explain to the readers in a clear way how we can realistically improve the lives of the overpopulated Muslim world without significant birth control. Do we really have enough time to wait until third world women are empowered? I don't think so.
22
If Europe had adopted Australia's hard-line policy, it's likely that thousands of refugees who died in the Mediterranean would still be alive, though unhappy, and their sometimes ruthless and always venal traffickers would be hundreds of millions of dollars short of ill-gotten gains. We'll never know how many lives Australia saved by not following Europe's pusillanimous course, because one can't prove a negative, but I'd guess it's in the hundreds of thousands.
As for the refugees suffering under tyranny, Lord Byron gave the best advice:
"Hereditary bondsmen! Know ye not
"Who would be free themselves must strike the blow?"
As for the refugees suffering under tyranny, Lord Byron gave the best advice:
"Hereditary bondsmen! Know ye not
"Who would be free themselves must strike the blow?"
22
It's about time the international community got it's act together and came up with a better system. The UNHCR system is simply too slow and cannot seem to respond to crises. The refugee convention is outdated and doesn't reflect the realities of our globalised world.
The Australia policy IS cruel. And it is designed to be. I am extremely conflicted about it.
Portraying boat arrivals as just like any refugee is not accurate. In order to get to Australia they passed through many countries that whilst not perfect were at least safe enough from war and persecution. They wanted to get to Australia for a new life. On a personal, human to human level, this is understandable. But I believe that the system for determining who gets a new life where should be consultative, and by consultative I mean that the people who live in that place already should get a say. And not in a nationalist sense, in a community sense.
So I would like to see Australia's cruel policy removed. But the people saying so with condescension should take pause. We NEED a better global system but without one, these policies are going to be popular because they are, like it or not, the only thing "stopping the boats". And the desire to stop the boats is as understandable as wanting a new life in a more peaceful, prosperous country that wasn't the one you were born in. We may not all agree exactly, but understanding and listening to what people are feeling without condescension would be a good idea.
The Australia policy IS cruel. And it is designed to be. I am extremely conflicted about it.
Portraying boat arrivals as just like any refugee is not accurate. In order to get to Australia they passed through many countries that whilst not perfect were at least safe enough from war and persecution. They wanted to get to Australia for a new life. On a personal, human to human level, this is understandable. But I believe that the system for determining who gets a new life where should be consultative, and by consultative I mean that the people who live in that place already should get a say. And not in a nationalist sense, in a community sense.
So I would like to see Australia's cruel policy removed. But the people saying so with condescension should take pause. We NEED a better global system but without one, these policies are going to be popular because they are, like it or not, the only thing "stopping the boats". And the desire to stop the boats is as understandable as wanting a new life in a more peaceful, prosperous country that wasn't the one you were born in. We may not all agree exactly, but understanding and listening to what people are feeling without condescension would be a good idea.
7
For non-Australian readers, Mr Cohen's article is ok. It's not factually incorrect. What he hasn't addressed, however, is that the issue of asylum seekers has been politicised to an extent that the Australian government is now incapable of unravelling the awful mess. There is an analogy in the politicisation of climate change in Australia, too. No one questions the need for 'border protection,' but the cruelty visited upon asylum seekers serves more than this. It has been, to date, popular with an electorate, whose collective morality and reason have so been so debased by the Murdoch press, the policy could ever only go one way - become more extreme. Mr Cohen should have noted, the Australian government has spent millions of dollars trying to offload asylum seekers to Cambodia. I think less than 10 people have been 'resettled' in Cambodia for who knows how much money per person. This then chimes nicely with the Immigration Minister's comments about (not) allowing in illiterate refugees, implying that they would be better suited to life in poor countries. However, Mr Cohen, it was post-September 11, under former PM John Howard, that the issue was first exploited, to great political effect. Neither party, Liberal or Labor, looked back. The whole thing is a disaster without end. In a world with millions of legitimately displaced people, a rich country like Australia seeking to offload refugees onto its poor neighbours is shameful. Makes me real proud to be Australian.
5
Interesting that the Murdock press is present every where these problems exists and support for the internment/deportation/or refusal of refuges always seem to be what the Murdock press supports. You should see what we are facing in America with the help of the Murdock press!
1
Except it is lying by omission. Not a word about the 1200 lost souls that we know about. Not a word about the 2000 kiddies locked up by previous govt that are now free.
1
Australia, like the USA, is a nation of migrants - 25% of the current population of 24 million people were born offshore. Year in, year out, it takes in up to 200,000 people (that would be like Germany taking in 800,000 every year) from all over the world, predominately now from Asia (which makes sense when you look at a map). It has been able sucessfully both to accommodate and integrate these people on a sustained basis. And refugees have always been a part of this migration program.
One thing this article misses is that the current policy of offshore processessing of refugee claims (and some half of those remaining on Manus have been adjudged not to be refugees at all, but rather economic migrants - they could be flown home tomorrow but refuse to go) for boat arrivals was introduced by the former Labor (socialist) government to help stop a growing stream of leaky boat arrivals whereby hundreds drowned. And the boats have stopped. The article observes that there will be an election in July - both sides are agreed to maintain offshore processing, just as both sides are agreed to maintain a refugee intake as apart of the continuing broader migration program (the only point of difference is how much that intake should be expanded).
One thing this article misses is that the current policy of offshore processessing of refugee claims (and some half of those remaining on Manus have been adjudged not to be refugees at all, but rather economic migrants - they could be flown home tomorrow but refuse to go) for boat arrivals was introduced by the former Labor (socialist) government to help stop a growing stream of leaky boat arrivals whereby hundreds drowned. And the boats have stopped. The article observes that there will be an election in July - both sides are agreed to maintain offshore processing, just as both sides are agreed to maintain a refugee intake as apart of the continuing broader migration program (the only point of difference is how much that intake should be expanded).
7
If they could be flown home tomorrow but refuse to go then this appears to be their best option by their own judgement and there is nothing shameful about it.
I would like to thank Roger Cohen for alerting readers of the NYT to this shameful policy. Like many Australians, I am appalled about what our government is doing in our name. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton's comments were contemptible. Unfortunately, the opposition Labor Party's policy is no better.
Mr Cohen you hit the nail on the head. It's such a shame that so many people can't see exactly what is going on, from an international perspective. The people who unfortunately ended up in Nauru and Manus Island were fleeing western bombs. To make them pariahs means that Australia is made into a pariah.
Humanity is such a simple - and cheap - concept. The cruelty enacted by the Australian government is barbaric and very expensive.
The worst part about this is that history is yet again repeating itself. One would think that we have learned from the Holocaust, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, South Africa and even Mr Hagenbach back in 1474.
There is a limit to cruelty, and Australia reached it quite some time ago. There now must be accountability
Humanity is such a simple - and cheap - concept. The cruelty enacted by the Australian government is barbaric and very expensive.
The worst part about this is that history is yet again repeating itself. One would think that we have learned from the Holocaust, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, South Africa and even Mr Hagenbach back in 1474.
There is a limit to cruelty, and Australia reached it quite some time ago. There now must be accountability
Given what is happening in Europe, I think our Australian friends are wise to proceed cautiously and rationally, and not emotionally. There are long term and profound implications for these decisions, and they should not be taken lightly. Good for Australia for recognizing it, and acting accordingly.
3
And the way the refugee crisis has been handled in Europe is better? Was there any thought given at all to that mess? Merkel is in jeopardy and neo-Nazis abound. Crime by immigrants against the citizens of countries they were welcomed into has become a problem. Australia is way too harsh, but once the welcome mat is out the refugees ought to be required to get work and not commit crimes. Authorities have to apprise refugees of the realities of life in the west. Refugees who commit crime and make no attempt to work should be put on a plane back to their country of origin. Play ball or you won't be allowed to stay in our comfortable society.
6
The comments provided by this article are more telling than the article itself, revealing strong beliefs in what is "right". One important detail is that Australia's position is in breach of many human rights conventions. Check with the UN.
Imagine if the situation was reversed. You arrive in a country legally, and then rule of law is ignored, you are locked up and you are referred to by numbers, not names.
The hard truth is that the brutally of treatment is far worse than reported, not least as reporters are not allowed access. Freedom of the press is a big deal in the US, but not so much in Australia. Indeed aiding those who seek to expose the truth is itself now a crime.
Both sides of politics strongly support this sorry state of affairs. Unluckily for current leaders, there is no plausible deniability. Australia has seen some terrible abuses by institutions of various types. This time, every politician is on written notice.
It truly is an ugly situation. There is no good answer or ready solution. Showing mercy and compassion will likely increase refugee numbers. But willingly treating these people with brutality is not an acceptable alternative.
And take note - all of this is born of huge income and social welfare inequalities between rich and poor. Either you must find a way to share the wealth a little more equitably within and between nations - or build walls and prepare to fight the wars to end all wars.
Imagine if the situation was reversed. You arrive in a country legally, and then rule of law is ignored, you are locked up and you are referred to by numbers, not names.
The hard truth is that the brutally of treatment is far worse than reported, not least as reporters are not allowed access. Freedom of the press is a big deal in the US, but not so much in Australia. Indeed aiding those who seek to expose the truth is itself now a crime.
Both sides of politics strongly support this sorry state of affairs. Unluckily for current leaders, there is no plausible deniability. Australia has seen some terrible abuses by institutions of various types. This time, every politician is on written notice.
It truly is an ugly situation. There is no good answer or ready solution. Showing mercy and compassion will likely increase refugee numbers. But willingly treating these people with brutality is not an acceptable alternative.
And take note - all of this is born of huge income and social welfare inequalities between rich and poor. Either you must find a way to share the wealth a little more equitably within and between nations - or build walls and prepare to fight the wars to end all wars.
24
Really sad story. I hate to hear when supposedly First World developed countries behave this way towards refugees seeking a better life due to violence and oppression in their homeland.
The Australians (White Anglo Saxon Protestant division) always seemed to be sensible, like the Canadians but with a more wild and crazy side. It is terrible to hear that many Australians are just as ignorant as most Americans.
That many Australians would fall for the siren song of the right (falsely saying we need more security from our "enemies") makes you wonder about the state of the schools in Australia.
Sigh, strike another place from places to go visit in the future. I always thought Australia would be a cool place to visit but not any more.
Why go to America-lite when you already live in the US? To me it would not be a vacation to some exotic place but another trip to any of the numerous flyover parts of America, the parts I avoid as a Hispanic.
Hey if I want to see rednecks I may as well stay here in the good old USA to do so. Americans have perfected the art of being a redneck, why settle for second-rate knock-offs?
PS to the people of Australia, I know that deep down at the core you all are a good-hearted people. It appears that you all are suffering from the same malady we are, idiot politicians doing stupid stuff making your country look bad to the rest of the world.
The Australians (White Anglo Saxon Protestant division) always seemed to be sensible, like the Canadians but with a more wild and crazy side. It is terrible to hear that many Australians are just as ignorant as most Americans.
That many Australians would fall for the siren song of the right (falsely saying we need more security from our "enemies") makes you wonder about the state of the schools in Australia.
Sigh, strike another place from places to go visit in the future. I always thought Australia would be a cool place to visit but not any more.
Why go to America-lite when you already live in the US? To me it would not be a vacation to some exotic place but another trip to any of the numerous flyover parts of America, the parts I avoid as a Hispanic.
Hey if I want to see rednecks I may as well stay here in the good old USA to do so. Americans have perfected the art of being a redneck, why settle for second-rate knock-offs?
PS to the people of Australia, I know that deep down at the core you all are a good-hearted people. It appears that you all are suffering from the same malady we are, idiot politicians doing stupid stuff making your country look bad to the rest of the world.
1
Having read the comments here it seems to me that this is an issue that cannot be dealt with in a column like this. It is far too complex. Many of the "anti-immigrant" comments - especially from outside of Australia - do not appear to realise that even the "pro-refugee" Australians, such as me, acknowledge the need to prevent people drowning at sea. But foreigners are unaware of the previous labor government's attempts to seek a regional solution and that the then conservative opposition cynically torpedoed that approach (the so called "Malaysia solution") for its own political gain (only to introduce an expensive and barbaric parody of that policy - the "Cambodia solution" when the conservatives were elected). Nor are foreigners aware that the solution lies in regional agreement - which means agreement primarily with Indonesia - and that relationship has been fraught with mistrust (mostly historical, but also from the military intervention in East Timor in 1999).
In to that witch's brew must be added the fact that some people - economic refugees - have used the situation to pose as refugees when they are economic refugees; which has given the racists and the conservatives (often not mutually exclusive groups) the opportunity to falsely label genuine refugees as economic refugees.
One point to note though: the current European situation is NOT like the situation in Australia. People coming out of Syria are clearly between a rock and a hard place in that war and their
In to that witch's brew must be added the fact that some people - economic refugees - have used the situation to pose as refugees when they are economic refugees; which has given the racists and the conservatives (often not mutually exclusive groups) the opportunity to falsely label genuine refugees as economic refugees.
One point to note though: the current European situation is NOT like the situation in Australia. People coming out of Syria are clearly between a rock and a hard place in that war and their
Only 1,350? Geez why don't we just take 'em all in here? Nobody would ever even notice. Send them with a tourist visa and let them overstay. Why not? It's being done daily by about this same amount with no repercussions anyway.
Borders? Who cares about those anymore.
Borders? Who cares about those anymore.
7
As an Australian American I have often wondered how it is that arid and desert conditions in the USA did not prevent populations from setting up sophisticated cities in, for example, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, South and North Dakota. Australia is very much in need of teachers and doctors willing to work in the so called "Outback". Australia is the size of the USA yet has the population of the state I now live in, Pennsylvania (20 million). As has been mentioned each wave of migrants is at first shunned and then, when one sees the high level of industry, accepted. For example, I saw how Vietnamese learned how to make the Australian cakes and run the cake shops just as the locals wanted them. One commenter has mentioned the extreme influx of wealthy Chinese which have caused Sydney houses to be unaffordable by ordinary people. Those of us who have left can never again afford to live in the cities we came from. Yes the White Australia Policy known to us students of the sixties appears to be casting its shadow onto the present day. Something is rotten in this apparent Paradise.
3
"As an Australian American I have often wondered how it is that arid and desert conditions in the USA did not prevent populations from setting up sophisticated cities in, for example, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, South and North Dakota."
Apart from Arizona and Nevada I wouldn't say there are particularly "sophisticated" cities in most of those regions, though perhaps they are spectacular compared to what you find in the interior of Australia, but there are still large swaths of uninhabited or barely habitable land. But I really digress. If you have to wonder then you probably aren't up very much on current events, because one of the explanations behind the blooming desert of the far western United States is aquifer irrigation and yes, as the aquifers are drying up, the far west is experiencing major drought problems. It is anyone's guess as to how much longer any significant remnant of the California paradise so emblematic of the 20th-century American Dream will last in the face of this environmental catastrophe.
And the environmental menace is far from the only threat looming over the Golden State...
Apart from Arizona and Nevada I wouldn't say there are particularly "sophisticated" cities in most of those regions, though perhaps they are spectacular compared to what you find in the interior of Australia, but there are still large swaths of uninhabited or barely habitable land. But I really digress. If you have to wonder then you probably aren't up very much on current events, because one of the explanations behind the blooming desert of the far western United States is aquifer irrigation and yes, as the aquifers are drying up, the far west is experiencing major drought problems. It is anyone's guess as to how much longer any significant remnant of the California paradise so emblematic of the 20th-century American Dream will last in the face of this environmental catastrophe.
And the environmental menace is far from the only threat looming over the Golden State...
3
This article comes across as proof of success of the Australia immigration policy, although not the intent. Untold lives have been saved as many people don't try to reach Australia now and the policy has dramatically reduced the blood profits of those who would bring them over. As the refugees were fleeing persecution in their home country, I think their last stop could easily have been Indonesia which is considered safe enough. But for some reason they continued on to Australia, most likely as economic migrants.
7
indonesia is not a signatory of the Geneva convention, so they can't be granted asylum and risk persecution from Indonesian authorities. The Australian government cites 'stopping the boats' ad verbatim but it's become increasingly clear that this is not about saving lives but an eery ultra nationalist and xenophobic slogan. we do not know if lives have been saved because the government has Shrouded this program in secrecy and has just adopted a policy of banishing boats of Australian waters so it can rid itself of any humanitarian obligation as a signatory to the geneva convention. In one case officials bribed Indonesian people smugglers to return their boats to point of origin. The boat later crashed of an island and locals saved the overboard asylum seekers. The bribe money was later applied as evidence in an Indonesian court when they prosecuted the people smugglers. Australia committed people smuggling itself to 'stop the boats'. It's also been alleged that Australia handed Tamil asylum seekers to Sri Lankan authorities which is in violation of the geneva convention. So no, all the government is doing is getting the boats off Australian waters, and what happens after that is of little concern to them.
Australia's "cruelty" is preventing it from turning into Sweden, Britain, and assorted other Western nations being bullied by the left into taking in anyone from the Third World who wants to get in, and eventually changing it completely, not necessarily for the better.
"Vast" and "thinly populated" is Cohen's poorly disguised rationale for how many non-Westerners Australia could be packing in. The problem is, those migrants don't want to go to those thinly populated wildernesses: they want to go to Melbourne and Sydney, just the way migrants coming to Britain want to go to London and Manchester and Birmingham where it's all happen'in and there are lots of jobs and they can also find huge communities of "their own".
Doubtless, Cohen doesn't think London's Cockneys, who are disappearing from Newham, the London community that they have been based in since the 1800s. are much of a loss. They and their distinct accent and customs and strong community framework were the most famous of England's distinct English subcultures. Outnumbered by the floods of immigrants into the area. they finally gave up and left, overrun and deprived of the community that had sustained them for nearly 150 years.
Australia's first duty is to its citizens, who know if you take 500, 50,000 more will follow. There will be no end to it.
Pity the UK didn't feel the same duty toward its citizens, or Newham might still be Cockney.
"Vast" and "thinly populated" is Cohen's poorly disguised rationale for how many non-Westerners Australia could be packing in. The problem is, those migrants don't want to go to those thinly populated wildernesses: they want to go to Melbourne and Sydney, just the way migrants coming to Britain want to go to London and Manchester and Birmingham where it's all happen'in and there are lots of jobs and they can also find huge communities of "their own".
Doubtless, Cohen doesn't think London's Cockneys, who are disappearing from Newham, the London community that they have been based in since the 1800s. are much of a loss. They and their distinct accent and customs and strong community framework were the most famous of England's distinct English subcultures. Outnumbered by the floods of immigrants into the area. they finally gave up and left, overrun and deprived of the community that had sustained them for nearly 150 years.
Australia's first duty is to its citizens, who know if you take 500, 50,000 more will follow. There will be no end to it.
Pity the UK didn't feel the same duty toward its citizens, or Newham might still be Cockney.
24
This article is the biggest load of rubbish ever written. Firstly most coming are country shoppers. Under the past govt 50000 people came, 1200 died at sea that we know of. When this govt got in there were 1000's in detention. The new govt stopped them coming, stop the deaths & got rid of large majority in detention camps. The ones remaining in camps have been offered money to go home (where safe) or resettled in another safe country but refuse to do so, because they want to come to Australia which govt has made clear wontb happen. By the way these detention camps are open, meaning the refugees are free to walk around the island, work or even start there own business. You have completely distorted what our immigration minister said. He was asked about oppositions plan to increase immigration numbers by 4 times. He said that if your going to do that, you have to realise it cost money as many are not educated & cant speak English, many go straight on welfare and stay there. the ones that do work are taking jobs that could be taken by people already here. First of all all the stats show that over 80% of the refugees coming to Australia at the moment dont speak English. 95% are on welfare 5 years after getting here & 50% don't ever work. The jobs they take are aust jobs, is that bad, depends on job market etc. He wasn't saying we shouldn't take refugees, but that there has to be a limit as it costs a lot of money and can have unintended consequences.
11
"This comment is the biggest load of rubbish ever written".
Doesn't really advance the debate does it? And the rest of your post is pretty similar in just pushing misinformation. "Stopping the boats" by turning them back at sea in internatlonal waters or even paying people smugglers is not a policy. Australia is wasting billions of dollars with its "mental illness factories" as professional psychological groups have described the detention camps. If the camps are so great then why aren't they in a capital city in Australia? It's because the government is keeping the Australian people out and keeping the media out which is why it's so wonderful that a NY Times columnist is writing about this. Your claims about refugees taking Australian jobs and not speaking English can be easily refuted by looking at any human rights website such as that of Amnesty International. Shame on you for putting out such misinformation that is helping to inflict cruelty on men, women and children.
Doesn't really advance the debate does it? And the rest of your post is pretty similar in just pushing misinformation. "Stopping the boats" by turning them back at sea in internatlonal waters or even paying people smugglers is not a policy. Australia is wasting billions of dollars with its "mental illness factories" as professional psychological groups have described the detention camps. If the camps are so great then why aren't they in a capital city in Australia? It's because the government is keeping the Australian people out and keeping the media out which is why it's so wonderful that a NY Times columnist is writing about this. Your claims about refugees taking Australian jobs and not speaking English can be easily refuted by looking at any human rights website such as that of Amnesty International. Shame on you for putting out such misinformation that is helping to inflict cruelty on men, women and children.
Roger,
Please see the article in The Stone today: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/letter-from-austria-is-europes...
Part of the larger problem, which can't be a public part of the narrative on immigration for any country is the fragility of liberal values when under pressure from more primitive human reactions like xenophobia. An unspoken task for all liberal governments is managing xenophobia. Arguably Europe has naively emphasised compassion and is in danger of letting the everpresent xenophobic genie out of the bottle.
Compassion is a broad spectrum response and must include compassion for the receiving society and its frail, flawed constituents.
Please see the article in The Stone today: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/letter-from-austria-is-europes...
Part of the larger problem, which can't be a public part of the narrative on immigration for any country is the fragility of liberal values when under pressure from more primitive human reactions like xenophobia. An unspoken task for all liberal governments is managing xenophobia. Arguably Europe has naively emphasised compassion and is in danger of letting the everpresent xenophobic genie out of the bottle.
Compassion is a broad spectrum response and must include compassion for the receiving society and its frail, flawed constituents.
4
Leadership and courage are in short supply around the world.
6
Cruelty? Quite the opposite. It would be much more cruel to tell people that they could come and live in Australia just by crossing the ocean - because that would start an endless wave of dangerous migration with inevitable thousands of lost at sea and drowned. The current Australian policy is in fact humane, maybe the most humane possible - because it stopped the boats and already saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. You will never get to live in Australia, if you break the law and attempt to enter the country illegally. There are other, legal ways. Just don't do it, do not feed the people smugglers. Australian policy works. If Europe adopted something similar, thousands of lives would be spared. What EU does is truly cruel.
13
Clear policy, clearly stated: through the front door is OK but the back door is always closed. This is precisely the message we should be sending if we ever want to have a functioning immigration system of any design.
9
"She'll be alright"
It's horribly sad for the stranded refugees but Australia does WORK for most Australians.
Unlike The USA and Europe.
It's horribly sad for the stranded refugees but Australia does WORK for most Australians.
Unlike The USA and Europe.
11
The arrogance of "liberal, progressive, humanistic intellectuals" like Mr. Cohen is mind-boggling. No sooner than he managed to down the cappuccino he started lecturing on ills of Australian laws and policies!
Surely, as a reputable journalist he firstly acquainted himself with facts, such as that the policy of ofshore processing is much older than 4 years. It was dismantled by the previous Labour government, whose policies (which apparently Mr. Cohen would applaud) saw some 50,000+ people arriving illegally to Australian shores. Yes, illegally - when someone turns up at your border without the visa and travel documents, they are illegal allien - aren't they? If (and that is IF) they apply for asylum and if (another IF) they are recognised as such, they get a different status. Until then - they are illegal arrivals, which is a legal category and not an insult.
Those 50,000 people, through sheer numbers caused severe problems in terms of processing, assessing, security checking etc. It took years to reduce the number to a meagre 1,350 - surely Mr. Cohen would like to praise Australian officials for that achievement?
For two years now there were no new illegal arrivals, no dead people at sea and no additions to those Nauru and PNG camps. At the same time Australia took some 40,000 (yes Mr Cohen - 40,000) refuges from various parts of the world. Selected, controlled, orderly, proper. Not good enough Mr Cohen?
Surely, as a reputable journalist he firstly acquainted himself with facts, such as that the policy of ofshore processing is much older than 4 years. It was dismantled by the previous Labour government, whose policies (which apparently Mr. Cohen would applaud) saw some 50,000+ people arriving illegally to Australian shores. Yes, illegally - when someone turns up at your border without the visa and travel documents, they are illegal allien - aren't they? If (and that is IF) they apply for asylum and if (another IF) they are recognised as such, they get a different status. Until then - they are illegal arrivals, which is a legal category and not an insult.
Those 50,000 people, through sheer numbers caused severe problems in terms of processing, assessing, security checking etc. It took years to reduce the number to a meagre 1,350 - surely Mr. Cohen would like to praise Australian officials for that achievement?
For two years now there were no new illegal arrivals, no dead people at sea and no additions to those Nauru and PNG camps. At the same time Australia took some 40,000 (yes Mr Cohen - 40,000) refuges from various parts of the world. Selected, controlled, orderly, proper. Not good enough Mr Cohen?
11
Yes I’m afraid Rachel highlights other issues here. It’s a complex matter.
These “asylum seekers” are not your poor and desperate. They all paid money seeking to bypass the legal refugee intake system, which a legion of others behind them cannot afford to do.
Second Australia’s stricter approach under the LNP Govt basically shut down the people “smuggling”, which trade under Labor cost around 1000 lives at sea?
Third the high cost under Labor of coping with c50,000 “illegals” could have been better spent on the legal refugee intake, where a rational process decides who is most deserving based on total circumstances, not just bank balances..
These “asylum seekers” are not your poor and desperate. They all paid money seeking to bypass the legal refugee intake system, which a legion of others behind them cannot afford to do.
Second Australia’s stricter approach under the LNP Govt basically shut down the people “smuggling”, which trade under Labor cost around 1000 lives at sea?
Third the high cost under Labor of coping with c50,000 “illegals” could have been better spent on the legal refugee intake, where a rational process decides who is most deserving based on total circumstances, not just bank balances..
6
Because the Australians are "cruel", they are sending the clear message that they have immigration laws and expect them to be followed. This keeps hundreds of thousands from attempting the journey. And it allows Australia, a sovereign nation, to stay as thinly populated as its elected representatives want it to be. Besides, if you had any knowledge of Australia, you would know that it is "thinly populated" overall because very large parts of the country are completely uninhabitable.
The reason Europe is being overrun, the reason this country has been overrun by illegal "immigrants" is we have been so kind as to create a gigantic mess.
The least "cruel" way to enforce a law is to actually enforce it so that fewer people break it.
The reason Europe is being overrun, the reason this country has been overrun by illegal "immigrants" is we have been so kind as to create a gigantic mess.
The least "cruel" way to enforce a law is to actually enforce it so that fewer people break it.
12
It's clear that Mr. Cohen has an enormous amount of empathy for the refugees. It's equally clear that he has none whatsoever for the people of Australia, who would quickly lose their "thinly populated country" if the open-doors policy he favors were ever enacted.
Fortunately for the people of Australia, their leaders have so far rejected the sort suicidal moral puritanism that Mr. Cohen and the Times Editorial Board are so determined to force upon the West. Stay strong Australia! And learn something, Europe!!!
Fortunately for the people of Australia, their leaders have so far rejected the sort suicidal moral puritanism that Mr. Cohen and the Times Editorial Board are so determined to force upon the West. Stay strong Australia! And learn something, Europe!!!
20
I am disappointed to read posts here attempting to justify the extreme policies of the Australian Government. Roger Cohen has actually very accurately summed up the inhumanity of these policies. The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers have been found to be refugees - even under the highly compromised process used to determine refugee status on Nauru and Manus Island. People who by definition are already traumatized by their experiences as refugees. Parliamentary and Human Rights Commission enquiries have condemned mandatory indefinite detention. The immense psychological harm caused by detention, and especially, detention in the camps on Nauru and Manus Island (and the Australian territory, Christmas Island) is well documented. 'Stopping the boats" is a mantra aimed at feeding into the insecurities of a population that has always feared 'invasion from the north'. What is not often recognized is that these polices exist at a time of a very high (skilled) migration intake (highly regulated of course). What is not mentioned in the excellent article by Roger Cohen is the plight of asylum seeker living in the community. See http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/13/we-are-the-forgott...
For a discussion about the contribution refugees make to Australian society see http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/18/fact-check-was-pet...
For a discussion about the contribution refugees make to Australian society see http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/18/fact-check-was-pet...
3
In the Fifties and Sixties, in the Western Districts of Victoria, I routinely saw the dead bodies of wedge-tailed eagles, strung on the fences by the roads, wings spread, in groups of three and four. They were shot by farmers as a dubious threat to livestock, and displayed "to deter the others". The present situation on Manus and Nauru, created by the Australian Government, reminds me of nothing so much as those dead animals, displayed as a deterrence. Cohen gets it about right. Australians, notoriously to my mind, want pathologically to be liked. Try then to be likable. Whatever the broad problem of informal immigration is about, not one, not a single one of the people held is personally responsible for the problem. Australia is a difficult country in which to disappear, and it would cost a great deal less and be more humane to send people back to their country of origin as they are inevitably identified. No more dead corpses on the fences, please.
Thank you, Mr Cohen, for bringing Australia's absurd, illegal, and cruel policy to light. As an Australian citizen, I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed that this policy is being conducted on my behalf. Yes, people smuggling is a dirty business, but simply condemning this shameful practice and washing our hands of our international obligations under the UN conventions is the greater shame. Why would the vast majority of asylum seekers board dangerous unseaworthy vessels unless desperation demanded it? In any case, whether the claims of asylum seekers are legitimate or not – and research by a number of non-partisan groups indicates that an overwhelming majority of claims are indeed genuine – the Australian government has a responsibility to assess those claims on its OWN shores. What Australia needs to do is to follow the practice it established in the 1970s, whereby it set up offices near crisis zones to assess requests for asylum. Those found to be genuine refugees could then be brought to Australia safely. But, no, let's instead continue our racist commentary about illiterate hoards of terrorists invading our shores. Let's continue to "process" the "illegals" in concentration camps that for most of us are out of sight and out of mind. I believe that we will look back on this period as a dark chapter in Australian history. It is a chapter we could end now, if we were willing to show the compassion and generosity that our country is supposed to represent.
2
I am stunned by the heartless, anti-immigrant commentaries posted by many commenters. “These people” are, for the most part, refugees from untold and often indescribable suffering. International law demands that refugees be treated with dignity and due process. If they are fleeing persecution, they are entitled to seek asylum. If they are economic refugees they have no such right. The conditions in Australia’s overseas “processing centers” should be deplored by all who believe in the rule of law.
The image that kept coming to my mind as I read Mr. Cohen’s column was that of Guantanamo -- not so much for its current deplorable role –but rather the Guantanamo once used as a refugee “Processing Center” for fleeing Haitians following the coup against President Aristide in 1991.
In that period, the US Coast guard would scoop fleeing Haitians out of the Caribbean and warehouse them in Guantanamo, away from the US mainland.
At its height, Guantanamo held over 30,000 Haitian refugees. Eventually US African-American civil rights leaders began to publicly object to US policies that harshly discriminated against black Haitian asylum seekers. Under pressure, 10,000 Haitians were admitted into the U.S.
One thing is the right of nations to control their borders. Another is to violate international humanitarian obligations. And yet anther is racism. Roger Cohen shows himself here to be a fine journalist with a sharp sense of right and wrong and a commitment to the rule of law.
The image that kept coming to my mind as I read Mr. Cohen’s column was that of Guantanamo -- not so much for its current deplorable role –but rather the Guantanamo once used as a refugee “Processing Center” for fleeing Haitians following the coup against President Aristide in 1991.
In that period, the US Coast guard would scoop fleeing Haitians out of the Caribbean and warehouse them in Guantanamo, away from the US mainland.
At its height, Guantanamo held over 30,000 Haitian refugees. Eventually US African-American civil rights leaders began to publicly object to US policies that harshly discriminated against black Haitian asylum seekers. Under pressure, 10,000 Haitians were admitted into the U.S.
One thing is the right of nations to control their borders. Another is to violate international humanitarian obligations. And yet anther is racism. Roger Cohen shows himself here to be a fine journalist with a sharp sense of right and wrong and a commitment to the rule of law.
3
Thank you for highlighting Australia's horrendous policy of offshore detention. Unlike many uninformed commentators here who are happy to support their comments based on memes on Facebook, far right wing commentators and biased media I would like to tell you the story of one young man on Manus. He arrived by boat on Christmas Island 3 years ago, alone and fleeing persecution. At the time he was 23. In his homeland he had worked as a mechanic on cars and motor bikes. For the last 3 years he has lived behind razor wire, lost 10 kilos and hasn't even had the most basic of human needs like a hug or heard his name spoken by anyone that cares. He was deemed a refugee last year. The men on Manus get two meals a day consisting of mainly rice and boiled vegetables, they live in converted metal containers and share a room with a minimum of 3 others. Some accommodation is dormitory style. Manus is very hot and tropical and most of the air conditioners don't work. No one wants terror in the world, not me, not you and certainly not the people who are fleeing war and persecution. BUT, to detain men, women and children indefinitely in prisons 'out of sight' is surely not the answer, even to those who appear so heartless I can only assume they have had the humanity slapped out of them? Close these camps, bring them here if they are refugees and start processing refugees in their country of origin or refugee camps nearby - that's the way to stop or slow people smuggling.
2
Are the nation's that these people come from sovereign nations? Aren't the people really the responsibility of their home nations and not the responsibility of the people of Australia? Why isn't the UN taking those home nations to task and requiring them to live up to their responsibilities? Someone should tell Mr. Cohen that the age of imperialism and "the white man's burden" are over. Appeals to white liberal guilt have also have worn out their welcome. He and other leftists don't seem to have gotten the message.
6
Great points, thanks for making them. I do think it is a mistake, however, to describe Australia as a "vast, thinly populated country" and "a vast land mass" to imply that it has huge capacity to expand its human population. Humans need more than just land. They need water too, and Australia is facing a water crisis. It is also facing a wildlife extinction crisis, due largely to human activity.
Antarctica is also vast with few people, but that doesn't mean that it could support a big human population.
Antarctica is also vast with few people, but that doesn't mean that it could support a big human population.
5
Most interesting here are the comments to Roger Cohen's now predictable pieces on the world's refugee problem. It is indicative of the times that they are dominated by a strong push back and criticism of Cohen's moralizing, even though NY Times' readers are overwhelmingly liberal in orientation.
The reason for this is obvious: for a broad mass of educated NY Times readers it is obvious that neither humanity nor this planet can simply absorb the explosion of human mouths to feed, we are fall headlong to a biological catastrophe the likes of which we have never experienced.
Not only are readers critical of Roger Cohen's armchair moralizing, they recognize that views like his are compounding the crisis by simply ignoring it. "Take in these poor refugees, you bad Australia (!!)", as if this would stop the Papua New Guineans from having more babies.
Only when NY Times journalists develop the courage to look squarely at the source of these crises will their readers acknowledge intelligent journalism. Right now the readers of the NY Times are far more astute and perspicacious than its writers.
The reason for this is obvious: for a broad mass of educated NY Times readers it is obvious that neither humanity nor this planet can simply absorb the explosion of human mouths to feed, we are fall headlong to a biological catastrophe the likes of which we have never experienced.
Not only are readers critical of Roger Cohen's armchair moralizing, they recognize that views like his are compounding the crisis by simply ignoring it. "Take in these poor refugees, you bad Australia (!!)", as if this would stop the Papua New Guineans from having more babies.
Only when NY Times journalists develop the courage to look squarely at the source of these crises will their readers acknowledge intelligent journalism. Right now the readers of the NY Times are far more astute and perspicacious than its writers.
9
The article is truthful and largely accurate. The perpetual detention of the remaining refugees is effectively psychological torture. Rachel in Australia and in Europe the 'terrorists' are generally born in the country. Refugees have contributed enormously to the Australian economy and to the development of this country. The political right in Australia have exploited xenophobic fears since the beginning of the century. For the cost of detention each refugee could have been provided with free housing, education and support. It is in humane and must end. A regional solution is required.
2
I am Australian. I have watched the regression of Australian refugee policy over decades, guided by a bureaucracy openly hostile to refugees and craven politicians, mostly of the Coalition, who appeal to xenophobia and hatred over compassion and reason. Roger Cohen neatly summarises everything what is wrong with Australian policy. And in the comments one can read the self-regarding rationalisations Australian’s offer for their failure to apply the Refugee Conventions and treat their fellow human with kindness. Most exasperating is the claim it saves lives at sea. Yet Australians never ask themselves what becomes of the tens of thousands of asylum seekers languishing in Indonesia and Malaysia, barred from applying to come here or those from Sri Lanka, who we have handed over to the persecutors they fled. Australians never think that if any of the people supposedly ‘saved’ today were to make the journey here tomorrow, we would immediately imprison them on remote islands, in conditions that break their minds and bodies. A clue to the real Australian attitude lies in the September 2015 promise to accept 12,000 Syrian refugees. Canada promised to receive 25,000, by February 2016 it had received 20,900 and has now received them all. Trumpeting its peerless screening processes as the reason, Australia has received just 26. We are condemned by the judgment of our deeds.
4
Ah Umberto! How easy it is to think as you, feel personally proud of one's moral rectitude and ignore the big picture and the political reality. You are effectively saying Australia should accept as a refugee all who qualify as such who may arrive here by boat. Never mind that currently there are 19.5 million externally displaced persons in the world and 1.8 million who are awaiting claims for asylum somewhere. Never mind that Australia cannot take them all, never mind that many of them would die at sea attempting the voyage here, and never mind that others simply seeking a better life would be encouraged to make the voyage to try their luck at becoming an Australian resident.
And never mind that if Labor were to take the position you do it would mean effectively condemning itself to not being able to form a federal government here for the foreseeable future. And what would the Coalition do if had that lock on federal government in Australia? Well it certainly wouldn't take greater action to combat global warming and it wouldn't legalise same-sex marriage would it? Do you think it might lower public funding of medicare, public schools and tertiary education? Would you be happy about this?
Tell us all here about your plan to door knock every home in Australia and wave your magic wand in front of every resident, to make them feel like you do, so people seeking asylum here by boat does not become the issue deciding who wins federal government in this country.
And never mind that if Labor were to take the position you do it would mean effectively condemning itself to not being able to form a federal government here for the foreseeable future. And what would the Coalition do if had that lock on federal government in Australia? Well it certainly wouldn't take greater action to combat global warming and it wouldn't legalise same-sex marriage would it? Do you think it might lower public funding of medicare, public schools and tertiary education? Would you be happy about this?
Tell us all here about your plan to door knock every home in Australia and wave your magic wand in front of every resident, to make them feel like you do, so people seeking asylum here by boat does not become the issue deciding who wins federal government in this country.
4
Indonesia and Malaysia are both safe countries. Nothing "becomes" there of the refugees what does not already happens to tens of millions of Indonesians and Malaysians. Should Australia take all of them too? This kind of shameless and thoughtless sloganeering is the worse source of misery and suffering than the clear and humane policy of Australian government.
Any country worth living in has an immigration problem today, not just Australia or the US.
Australia is putting the well-being of its environment, the stability of its society, and the life-quality of its citizens first. I wish the US would do the same. Open the flood gates, and you will be flooded.
Australia is putting the well-being of its environment, the stability of its society, and the life-quality of its citizens first. I wish the US would do the same. Open the flood gates, and you will be flooded.
8
An alternate plan would end up like our current situation in the US: people reach the border, then what to do with them? We've decided it's inhumane to detain people waiting for their case to be heard, so they are released into the interior. And then how many show up for their court date, knowing they have little chance of winning? Very few. So now you've got people remaining in the country illegally, with more and more on the way, because they've heard that if they make it here they will not be detained, and suddenly once there's 11 million of them we're told there's just too many to deport. I don't think the camps are the problem. In fact, they seem to be working - we're not seeing daily news articles of children drowning when smuggling boats overturn off the coast of Australia.
5
Summary of the comments I've read so far:
"I'm fine, white Australians are fine. People unlucky enough to be born in poor and oppressive lands can die any way they like -- at sea, in horrible jails, or from armed thugs -- matters not to me."
"I'm fine, white Australians are fine. People unlucky enough to be born in poor and oppressive lands can die any way they like -- at sea, in horrible jails, or from armed thugs -- matters not to me."
13
"People unlucky enough to be born in poor and oppressive lands can die any way they like -- at sea, in horrible jails, or from armed thugs -- matters not to me."
Except, of course, people who come by boat take places from people in Refugee camps. Bleeding hearts care nothing for those in camps, who they can't see.
Except, of course, people who come by boat take places from people in Refugee camps. Bleeding hearts care nothing for those in camps, who they can't see.
1
Well said.
You need to direct some of your empathy towards the people of Australia- people who know they cannot care for tens of millions of economic migrants.
Sometimes when you try to help everyone you end up helping no one.
Sometimes when you try to help everyone you end up helping no one.
1
Australia has its share of problems with the influx of wealthy Chinese making it difficult for average folks already there to buy or rent a home. As if The globalization started by greedy American garment manufacturers wasn't bad enough does the rest of the world have to suffer for what essentially began as a Palestinian/right wing Israeli issue and has now morphed into extremist Muslim/Isis against the U.S.A. and Israel while dragging the rest of the world into the mess. The time is long past to let these people solve their own problems in their own homelands, choosing sides thanks to heavy lobbying on the part of various groups including A.I.P.A.C. have done nothing but worsen the situation. Europe, America, Australia as well as New Zealand cannot survive the billions who wish to improve their lot in life by taking advantage of the generosity and naiviety of European and American cultures who collectively created desirable places to live over generations. When America or France had their Revolutions they weren't running away too India, China or Pakistan they stayed home and built their nations, other people might want to try it rather than trying to benefit from what someone else has done, I don't see China, India, Mexico or Pakistan standing there with an open door although there are enormously wealthy people in all those countries, they must stay home and determine for themselves how the wealth is to be shared as we and France once did and we must now do once more.
26
Um history? A bit of it would help.
When the Americans and the French were having their revolutions and after, India was succumbing to colonalisation by the British. Pakistan didn't yet exist, and the Brits, Portugese and Dutch were trying their best to get into China as well (for trade though, I admit). Mexico was a Spanish colony.
Also, it was a different time... Are you saying we should not become more civilised as time goes on? That we should live in the seventeenth century?
I do see your point. People should clean up their own messes. [Even if some of it was created or worsened by the same someone else who are now backing away from helping them.] But the fact is, that is not how it happens. Nobody stands on their own.
We all benefit from what someone else has done! That is how life goes on... It would be great if we leave something for someone else to benefit too.
When the Americans and the French were having their revolutions and after, India was succumbing to colonalisation by the British. Pakistan didn't yet exist, and the Brits, Portugese and Dutch were trying their best to get into China as well (for trade though, I admit). Mexico was a Spanish colony.
Also, it was a different time... Are you saying we should not become more civilised as time goes on? That we should live in the seventeenth century?
I do see your point. People should clean up their own messes. [Even if some of it was created or worsened by the same someone else who are now backing away from helping them.] But the fact is, that is not how it happens. Nobody stands on their own.
We all benefit from what someone else has done! That is how life goes on... It would be great if we leave something for someone else to benefit too.
1
I consider myself a liberal but I sympathize with the Australians. I think Trump is an awful bigot but I don't want any more Muslims in the USA. I think they would work against American support for Israel. But I don;t think anybody should be mistreated as the Australians seem to be doing. I'll let it go at that.
18
So, if i understand, the interests of a foreign country are paramount to your opinion about who should or should not be allowed to this country.
Nobody should be mistreated but the Palestinians, right?
1
I am a 3rd generation American agnostic and I too don't want any more muslims BUT I also think America should stop supporting Isreal and its illegal takeover of the Pakestinian land that they lyingly refer to as 'settlements'.
Let's see: A total of 1,350 people "languishing" in these pacific islands, who decided they were going to try and get to Australia regardless of its policies, versus that same number more or less arriving DAILY just in Greece's Aegean islands
Seems like Australia's policies are pretty effective.
Seems like Australia's policies are pretty effective.
96
It is a far longer, difficult and more dangerous journey to get to Australia than to cross from Turkey to Greece or from North Africa to Italy. The number of people who attempt it are minuscule even when the trade was 'flourishing' and Australia was going to get 'swamped' with 'illegal boat people' and 'terrorists', even though most (I can't recall the exact figure but it was >90%) who arrived were found to be legitimate refugees.
Our 'policies' appear to be a success because it never was a 'problem' - just rank xenophobia introduced by a former Prime Minister about to head to an election he was going to lose. Now Australia goes hysterical and our governments spend billions to torture people and strip them of all human dignity and personhood.
Unfortunately I think Australia is just ahead of the game, and that the future of humanity looks increasingly bleak as more and more members of the human race become 'non-humans' for whatever reason, be it that they are fleeing war and persecution or were simply born into poverty (including citizens of 'wealthy' countries).
Our 'policies' appear to be a success because it never was a 'problem' - just rank xenophobia introduced by a former Prime Minister about to head to an election he was going to lose. Now Australia goes hysterical and our governments spend billions to torture people and strip them of all human dignity and personhood.
Unfortunately I think Australia is just ahead of the game, and that the future of humanity looks increasingly bleak as more and more members of the human race become 'non-humans' for whatever reason, be it that they are fleeing war and persecution or were simply born into poverty (including citizens of 'wealthy' countries).
1
Yeah. Either that or their inconvenient southern hemisphere location.
Thank you for shining a spotlight on this indefensible policy. It is just heartless cruelty, xenophobia, and racism writ large.
16
This article is inaccurate, untruthful and distorts the situation beyond recognition. There is a highly lucrative trade is people smuggling around the world. Pay your money and we'll take you to ....
The so called illegal "asylum seekers" destroy their ID papers so their past cannot be traced - criminals? terrorists? by and large unknown. Every country has an obligation to it's citizens and a legal and moral right to vet who can enter and who can become citizens. There is a legal system of refugee intake, and even then some of these people have been found to pose a significant threat to Australia's security. Not all of course. A recent study has found that a substantial majority of immigrants who claimed 'refugee status' in recent years have not worked after 5 years residence and continue to claim benefits despite being healthy and young. The situation in Germany over New Year where young German women were raped and manhandled by gangs of ''refugees" should alert the world to the risks, or would Roger Cohen claim that it was the fault of these young german women? Yes, good for Australia. keep it up indeed.
The so called illegal "asylum seekers" destroy their ID papers so their past cannot be traced - criminals? terrorists? by and large unknown. Every country has an obligation to it's citizens and a legal and moral right to vet who can enter and who can become citizens. There is a legal system of refugee intake, and even then some of these people have been found to pose a significant threat to Australia's security. Not all of course. A recent study has found that a substantial majority of immigrants who claimed 'refugee status' in recent years have not worked after 5 years residence and continue to claim benefits despite being healthy and young. The situation in Germany over New Year where young German women were raped and manhandled by gangs of ''refugees" should alert the world to the risks, or would Roger Cohen claim that it was the fault of these young german women? Yes, good for Australia. keep it up indeed.
99
You sound like Dutton, are you related?
You neglected to mention that Duttons government paid the smugglers to turn back on numerous occasions ... great deal if you can get it, $$$ from the refugees and $$$ from the Oz government, taxpayers $$$ at that
At the end of the day, these people are human beings not criminals but as long as the Australian government can get votes, they will do whatever they need to and that includes condoning murder.
I might as well mention that this government supports tax evasion by the people and corporations that donate to them .... sound familiar?
You neglected to mention that Duttons government paid the smugglers to turn back on numerous occasions ... great deal if you can get it, $$$ from the refugees and $$$ from the Oz government, taxpayers $$$ at that
At the end of the day, these people are human beings not criminals but as long as the Australian government can get votes, they will do whatever they need to and that includes condoning murder.
I might as well mention that this government supports tax evasion by the people and corporations that donate to them .... sound familiar?
And you have some proof that your venom is accurate? Of course Australia is boiling over with terrorist incidents which so far consists of one whacko who took over Lindt's and killed fewer people than the security forces sent in to get him. The same country that has failed its aboriginal population, pursued a white's only immigration policy till it found itself booted out of the UK-favored list thanks to EU issues, participated as a US lackey in Vietnam and the Gulf, and memorably gave us" two Wongs don't make a White". That one?
Yes I’m afraid Rachel highlights other issues here. It’s a complex matter.
These “asylum seekers” are not your poor and desperate. They all paid money seeking to bypass the legal refugee intake system, which a legion of others behind them cannot afford to do.
Second Australia’s stricter approach under the LNP Govt basically shut down the people “smuggling”, which trade under Labor cost around 1000 lives at sea?
Third the high cost under Labor of coping with c50,000 “illegals” could have been better spent on the legal refugee intake, where a rational process decides who is most deserving based on total circumstances, not just bank balances..
These “asylum seekers” are not your poor and desperate. They all paid money seeking to bypass the legal refugee intake system, which a legion of others behind them cannot afford to do.
Second Australia’s stricter approach under the LNP Govt basically shut down the people “smuggling”, which trade under Labor cost around 1000 lives at sea?
Third the high cost under Labor of coping with c50,000 “illegals” could have been better spent on the legal refugee intake, where a rational process decides who is most deserving based on total circumstances, not just bank balances..
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/253/The-Middle-of...
Great podcast about what is Nauru's issues
Great podcast about what is Nauru's issues
4
Yes, I heard this on NPR. The situation is even worse than what Cohen is describing -- the island that these people are condemned to is a bleached out remnant of a coral reef -- except for palm near the shore, there is literally nothing on this island. People are left to stare at the sea all day. It is cruel beyond belief. By all means listen to this episode of This American Life.
1
I live in Israel. I've always resented those people who do not live here and make judgements about the government and what should be done to make peace, etc. I am very opposed to this government, but by living here, having worked here for decades, paid taxes here, retired here, and having voted in every election since arriving, I think it is fair for me to be able to criticize and voice my opinion. I feel the same way about Roger Cohen's column. Sure, you can have an opinion - but to write a column like you have enough knowledge and understanding of everything involved in such a complex issue about a place you just set foot in this past week? Absurd. We just heard the other day about your arrival there, your drinking a cappuccino with cute heart-shaped foam, and your inability to distinguish between Australia and any other place. Maybe only when you get to know it enough to be able to see what is distinct about the society there would your opinion be somewhat credible. The problems of the disparity between the few better places to live and the vast number of horrid places to live are vast. You chose the US as your home - work on the USs refugee and immigrant absorption first before worrying about places you don't know.
42
"Even women raped and impregnated on Nauru have been treated as if they are security threats." - Well, aren't they? Or aren't they at least indicative of a security threat?
Consider the case of Europe. Rape and Islamist culture seem to go hand in hand. Stories of rape have accompanied the migrants out of the Middle East, even this paper has documented it. It's part of their journey, and it's not limited to the journey either. It happens where they settle, in Cologne, Rotterham, and Sweden
And does anyone really expect the migrant women to break the cycle? Of course they won't. They'll raise their sons to devalue women and they'll raise their daughters to accept it.
It's unfortunate that it has taken the societies of the West this long to wake up to the threat posed by the global South, but we're awake now. And something tells me that these processing centers are just the beginning, and in 50 to 100 years will be regarded as an extremely soft touch. This problem is going to get much, much worse before it gets better.
Consider the case of Europe. Rape and Islamist culture seem to go hand in hand. Stories of rape have accompanied the migrants out of the Middle East, even this paper has documented it. It's part of their journey, and it's not limited to the journey either. It happens where they settle, in Cologne, Rotterham, and Sweden
And does anyone really expect the migrant women to break the cycle? Of course they won't. They'll raise their sons to devalue women and they'll raise their daughters to accept it.
It's unfortunate that it has taken the societies of the West this long to wake up to the threat posed by the global South, but we're awake now. And something tells me that these processing centers are just the beginning, and in 50 to 100 years will be regarded as an extremely soft touch. This problem is going to get much, much worse before it gets better.
29
Until the current government took action to protect our borders, Australia was receiving no less than a boatload a day of refugees; there was a growing trade in human trafficking, with people smugglers doing a roaring business. Those flood gates have now been closed, thanks to off-shore processing. The message to the people smugglers and those wanting to enter Australia illegally is that you won't be taken to Australia. Those who are stopped in Australian waters are, instead, taken to off-shore facilities, where they are housed, clothed, fed and provided with medical care and cell phones. They have been offered resettlement options in other countries; they have been offered to be flown back to their homeland - all paid for by the so-called 'cruel' Australians. I challenge Roger Cohen's statement that these people are consistently demeaned. A statement by immigration minister Peter Dutton reiterated statistical facts that after 10 years, the majority of refugees here remain unemployed. That's a concern for a nation with a very small tax base and a very large social welfare bill to foot. Take a look around the world, Mr. Cohen, and get a clue as to why any nation might want to control its borders and ensure the safety of its people. Yes, Mr. Cohen, we're just like you in that regard.
50
Precisely. The most effective law enforcement, the most humane law enforcement, is vigorous, unambiguous, well publicized enforcement that sends the clear message that (a) there is a law and (b) it will be enforced.
What the Europeans are doing is cruel: opening the flood gates, then trying to slam them shut. What this country has been doing is just crazy: allowing scofflaw employers to "import" illegal workers and stick the taxpayer with the tab for the entire family.
What the Europeans are doing is cruel: opening the flood gates, then trying to slam them shut. What this country has been doing is just crazy: allowing scofflaw employers to "import" illegal workers and stick the taxpayer with the tab for the entire family.
4
If Australia had a better record in its treatment of its own indigenous peoples, your argument might be more credible. But Australia's record with respect to its indigenous population is every bit as bad as that of the U.S.
2
Amen. If there are laws, enforce them consistently and fairly. Otherwise, don't bother. Trying to have it both ways is painful for everyone on in the end.
1
When "white" people run from a troubled neighborhood it's called "white flight" and liberals abhor that practice. Even though they are running for the common good of themselves and their children. However when citizens run from their troubled countries, instead of staying to make it better, liberals applaud that move and justify it as a common good for those fleeing and their children. Amazing!
22
Australians are really the lower middle class left-overs of the British rulers of the colonial times. Considering how the UK is now handling the Middle East refugees in Europe (Thanks, but No Thanks) the apple still doesn't fall far from the tree.
4
Oh I take it you must be from the upper classes then Sir Rudolf? We say G'day mate to everyone, from plumber to Prime Minister and I wouldn't have it any other way
3
Mr. Cohen, Australian laws are none of your business. They look at us and Europe and they do not like what they see. They are happy the way they live and want to keep it that way.
62
No, we are not happy. Many, many of us reject these policies and advocate for them to change. Medical professionals recently took action to prevent the removal of women and children to Nauru. Churches have offered sanctuary. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/let-them-stay-rallies-across-country-a...
1
As an Australian, I welcome Mr. Cohen's scrutiny of this country's laws. And Alex, not all of us are happy with the way this country's immigration policies are used to oppress people seeking asylum. Neither are we happy with the way the laws are used to prevent us from knowing what is happening in our name. So shine a light on what is happening here.
2
Yes. That is why we left...
Poor fella my country
Poor fella my country
Apparently Australia has every right to reject illegal immigrants, but Europe is demonized for not welcoming all the millions of illegals from Africa and the Mid East. Where are the heart-breaking photos of drowned children on Australian shores?
12
They are not drowning on Australian shores because Australia rounds them up and takes them to the processing centers.
1
We had 1200 of them. That we know off. Oceans just take bodies, so it's hard to count them. Then we said enough.
1
If Donald J. Trump gains the White House, Australia's "offshore processing" policy will seem like a humane picnic compared with what will happen stateside.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
4
Germans, Irish and Italians used to come to this country by the millions. Afterwards they changed the rules for countries with population surpluses like Mexico. We can't admit we need them and want to ship them back. Are there still fertile lands where single family farms can be settled. Places in Europe, Russia and the Americas have land that is not being used. Australia can be transformed with the right kind of engineering.
Europe united at least for now. Is there a plan to do so with the rest world. We see re treaded nineteen sixties Marxism but where are the new idealist and economist that could unite us under a system that works for all. We are where we are because of an accident of birth. To many people today are more worried about butterflies and smelt than people.
Europe united at least for now. Is there a plan to do so with the rest world. We see re treaded nineteen sixties Marxism but where are the new idealist and economist that could unite us under a system that works for all. We are where we are because of an accident of birth. To many people today are more worried about butterflies and smelt than people.
3
They should be sent back to where they came from! If the nations of origin refuse to take them they should be put on cheap rafts offshore of those nations and told to paddle home, returned by smugglers sneaking them back the other way across their borders bound and gagged if necessary, and or by any creative-devious means that can be found. To allow the status quo to continue is to allow these invasions, the violation of the sovereignty rights of citizens to continue all over the world. The absolutely worst thing to do is to allow illegal immigrant invaders to stay - this as we have ample evidence of here in the USA and in the rest of the world encourages millions more to invade.
15
Mr Cohen, this is as one-sided an opinion as I've ever read. Please expand your conversational circle or 'research' beyond Robert Manne or Sarah Hanson-Young!
34
Good for Australia. Keep it up.
70
Australians are facing the reality of increasing illegal immigration and bogus asylum request. When Aussies violate the immigration laws of Indonesia (where most would-be migrants sail from) they are prosecuted to the full letter of the law. Australia realizes that once they allow any immigrants, including those attempting to enter illegally, to land, they will have a difficult time deporting them. The US should learn something here.
73
Australia punishes the people who are least able to protect themselves. Perhaps Australia should go after the people who organize the transportation and take these peoples' money.
We can only imagine how terrible their living situation must have been to take this risk to go to Australia and then be treated without any compassion.
We can only imagine how terrible their living situation must have been to take this risk to go to Australia and then be treated without any compassion.
3
This editorial goes only so far, resulting in a distorted picture of Australia's immigration policy: it is restrictive as described, but it is also restrictive overall. There is a long, heavily vetted application process open only to persons under age 60, although those who commit to investing $250K in a business hiring several people get rapid entry; race does not appear to be an issue as there is a large Asian community. In other words, Australia is picking the cream of potential citizens, those viewed as having the most to contribute to the country while posing the least financial, social and educational burdens except for classes to meet the absolute requirement to learn English. It's not an unreasonable model, one that Australia has heavily publicized in the countries from which the people on the off shore islands came - including warnings of being sent back or sequestered - in an attempt to prevent just the problems described in Cohen's editorial. While sad, the immigrants deserve some of the blame for their condition.
33
Australia like the US has a population that is 99% descended from immigrants, and like Australia the US has a population that says "I got mine" and slanders the current generation of migrants with nonsense. The same arguments against Middle Eastern people today are the same arguments used against Asians and before them Italians, Greeks, Jews, Eastern Europeans and the Irish before them in BOTH countries. Yet the mistakes are repeated. It seems like Canada, Germany and Brazil are the only countries to take their past immigration mistakes and undo them with the current chaos roiling Syria through Afghanistan. The fact is both Australia and the US can accommodate immigrants, instead they accommodate racism. It is funny, Ellis Island for decades required no visa, shall we kick the millions, including myself, descended from that process, out? Pathetic.
6
It's not racism, an overworked lie. It's self preservation.
39
The immigrants of the past did not come to America and Australia expecting welfare. They came expecting to work hard. You can have open borders or a welfare state. The combination is unsustainable.
4
Considering Europe's experience with refugees from third world nations I cannot blame Australia for being tough with their treatment of illegal immigration.
Look at what happened in Belgium or France with cities like Mollenbeck. It just show how accepting immigrants who don't want to integrate can bring chaos to the countries that accept them. In other words, it is nothing less than a societal suicide. We have seen Lebanon, Kosovo being overrun by Muslim extremists. Which country in its right mind would want to repeat that experience?
I think Mr. Cohen likes to give cheap "humanitarian" advice as he has no skin in the game but he is damaging his credibility in the process by not giving any attention to the risk of ruin his advice carries.
Look at what happened in Belgium or France with cities like Mollenbeck. It just show how accepting immigrants who don't want to integrate can bring chaos to the countries that accept them. In other words, it is nothing less than a societal suicide. We have seen Lebanon, Kosovo being overrun by Muslim extremists. Which country in its right mind would want to repeat that experience?
I think Mr. Cohen likes to give cheap "humanitarian" advice as he has no skin in the game but he is damaging his credibility in the process by not giving any attention to the risk of ruin his advice carries.
46
Remember the "white Australia" policy?
3
I'm 50 this year and I don't remember it because it's before my time but if you have a walk through Sydney or Melbourne you'll see how multicultural the place is. Now how about Japan or Korea or China? What are their 'immigration' policies??
3
Ah, another poorly thought out and heavily biased and bleeding heart column by Roger Cohen, advocating unlimited migration into a Western country (one of the New York Times favorite trope.)
I am a liberal, visited Australia for months, and can understand why this vast country, with limited water resources, most of which is arid and inhospitable to human life, cannot afford to accept millions of poor, uneducated people illegally migrating into their country. Not only do most of these illegal migrants have no skills or education, but many do not buy into Western values of gender equality, secularism and social liberalism.
Australia has every right not to accepting millions of refugees flooding into their country, which is a recipe for self destruction. Cohen has zero credibility or a rationale on this issue.
I am a liberal, visited Australia for months, and can understand why this vast country, with limited water resources, most of which is arid and inhospitable to human life, cannot afford to accept millions of poor, uneducated people illegally migrating into their country. Not only do most of these illegal migrants have no skills or education, but many do not buy into Western values of gender equality, secularism and social liberalism.
Australia has every right not to accepting millions of refugees flooding into their country, which is a recipe for self destruction. Cohen has zero credibility or a rationale on this issue.
127
I think the offshore camps are just plain stupid. Not only are they cruel, they're obscenely expensive. The Government though was right in intercepting and stopping the boats. The trip to Lesbos is dangerous enough but trying to get from Java to Christmas Island in an overcrowded fishing vessel is a death sentence. It's open ocean and I know it's power, I've surfed there. Just Google Chrismas Island Refugee boat disaster and you can see it in all its tragic detail. For too long the uber corrupt Indonesian police and military were happy to take the people smuggler's money and look the other way. Most of the people smugglers are from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Bangladesh. That flow of people has stopped and that is a good thing. What to do about those on Manus and Nauru? I would shut them down asap. Any member of the public who wanted to sponsor someone or a family could do so anyone who need labour could apply, e.g. rural abattoirs etc. and unsavoury types could be put on a plane back to wherever they come from but 3 billion people live on the fringes of the Indian Ocean and half of them would give a digit to live in Australia. The lifestyle we enjoy did not fall from the sky, we built and we want to preserve it. We will continue to accept refugees on a humanitarian basis in volumes that we can absorb although the recent riot in Melbourne between Sudanese and Pacific Islander groups shows it's not all smooth sailing. In the end though, we must retain control of our borders.
18
If Australians are looking to see who is ruining their country, they should start with the mining companies and the right wing politicians, not the refugees.
7
No one is ruining our country. We haven't had a recession in more than 30 years and I've never seen the place so prosperous in my 50 years. We have a trade surplus with China. It just keeps getting better. Come visit and see for yourself.
2
Conservatives universally appear to favor policies "that shames a nation with its pointless cruelty." Their message everywhere is thinly disguised fascism. In the US it is the Trump/Ryan team. Putin is all by himself but could be joined at the hip with Trump. "Bros' for world domination. Not likely to happen as they will betray each other at the cross roads.
Canada tired of the shallow conservative, corrupt ideology and voted a liberal in. The US will follow if the political landscape remains the same. Bernie is so over his head that he will seem like a lost puppy in the POTUS slot, an easy mark for the GOP conservative trash talk machine and congress.
Conservatives here and elsewhere have given up on democracy. It just doesn't recognize their sense of entitlement. Witness the decline of reason in Israel.
Canada tired of the shallow conservative, corrupt ideology and voted a liberal in. The US will follow if the political landscape remains the same. Bernie is so over his head that he will seem like a lost puppy in the POTUS slot, an easy mark for the GOP conservative trash talk machine and congress.
Conservatives here and elsewhere have given up on democracy. It just doesn't recognize their sense of entitlement. Witness the decline of reason in Israel.
8
I'd back Bernie Sanders to have a higher IQ and general knowledge level than any Republican you care to name.
6
Australia should not have to make any effort - nations with overpopulation and civil wars are to blame. In Africa, women with 5 to 10 children are very common. It is unseen in Europe, N. America and Australia. Most of those failed countries are responsible for their fate. It is impossible to accommodate that kind of growth - not economically, not ecologically. I would say it is one's nation duty to protect itself from invasion from other countries who have overgrown their carrying capacity. There have been efforts to help those failed nation for the past 50 years. The results have been inconsequential because they do not want to listen to our institutions, they want to listen to their backward religious preachers. What exactly are we supposed to do? No, Mr. Cohen we have no obligation to open the door and let them in. That would be suicide. The solution is to cut the cord and let them deal with their own problems and face reality. Then may be they will open their eyes and listen to reason. Until then, no more help.
77
Except for the rich ones and the white ones, who are welcome to come.
5
"...deal with their problems and face reality." A lot of the problems are actually the "wests" makings ?
2
I have been to Australia on a number of occasions. It is a country which is the envy of almost all others, those in North America and Europe included. A very important reason for this is its sane immigration policy. It insists on the rules being observed and gives priority to skilled immigrants. It has not succumbed to the madness of countless other western nations, which have surrendered their sovereignty and cultures to invading hordes.
Australians are to be applauded for their approach to immigration and not bending to the mindless whining of the loony left. Roger Cohen can implement his views in the USA, by voting for Hilary. Fortunately in Australia, he has no say.
Australians are to be applauded for their approach to immigration and not bending to the mindless whining of the loony left. Roger Cohen can implement his views in the USA, by voting for Hilary. Fortunately in Australia, he has no say.
107
Australia is smarter than the US in another way: they did away with the lunacy of Birthright Citizenship in 2007, a couple of years after New Zealand ended it there.
We still have it. Crazy. It makes absolutely no sense that someone illegally in this country can tap the taxpayer to pay for delivering a US citizen child. Consider this: an illegal "immigrant" cannot legally work in this country, cannot support a child. By what logic should a child be a citizen when their own parents cannot legally work to provide support?!
We still have it. Crazy. It makes absolutely no sense that someone illegally in this country can tap the taxpayer to pay for delivering a US citizen child. Consider this: an illegal "immigrant" cannot legally work in this country, cannot support a child. By what logic should a child be a citizen when their own parents cannot legally work to provide support?!
5
The government of Australia is committed to a logic that has defied the citizens of Europe. Keeping the homeland safe and free of a multicultural schism is what they should be doing. I applaud the Australian government.
These refugees have no rights, were not invited and are not welcome.
Ms Gleeson should travel through the countries these migrants came from, live in their shoes and she may realize that they may as well be from another planet for all they have in common.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Let the migrants be returned to their homelands, peacefully. But return them.
These refugees have no rights, were not invited and are not welcome.
Ms Gleeson should travel through the countries these migrants came from, live in their shoes and she may realize that they may as well be from another planet for all they have in common.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Let the migrants be returned to their homelands, peacefully. But return them.
57
Australia is waiting for its check from Tom to begin affording that return thing. Make it a generous one, Tom.
1
"These refugees have no rights, ..."
No right to life, no right to liberty, no right to pursue happiness, no rights at all?
That being the case, why not just shoot them all and be done with it? No crime in that, correct? Or perhaps they could be sold as slaves? If they gave no rights, then there in NO reason NOT to sell them as slaves.
Back in 1857 no less than the chief justice of the Supreme Court agreed that some people have no rights: "[Blacks are] so far inferior that they [have] no rights which the white man [is] bound to respect." But then, he only claimed that blacks had no rights which a white man was bound to respect, which was not to say they had no rights at all.
He probably hadn't thought it through.
No right to life, no right to liberty, no right to pursue happiness, no rights at all?
That being the case, why not just shoot them all and be done with it? No crime in that, correct? Or perhaps they could be sold as slaves? If they gave no rights, then there in NO reason NOT to sell them as slaves.
Back in 1857 no less than the chief justice of the Supreme Court agreed that some people have no rights: "[Blacks are] so far inferior that they [have] no rights which the white man [is] bound to respect." But then, he only claimed that blacks had no rights which a white man was bound to respect, which was not to say they had no rights at all.
He probably hadn't thought it through.
1
Let's not forget, most of Australia is desert and unpopulated for that reason. More relevantly, sovereignty means reserving the rights to determine who can enter our home; otherwise, it's called intrusion. If somebody really poor and homeless enter Cohen's home by force, then beg his mercy to let them stay, what would Cohen say?
I sympathize with the suffering of these refugees, but I understand also why the Australian government won't open up their border to anybody who knock on it least it opens a flood gate experienced by the EU.
The genuine and lasting solutions here is to help stabilize the refugees' homeland so the won't need to leave.
There needs to be a global push back on the myth of a wealth making class that deserve an unproportional share of wealth generated by the combined effort of the workers and investors. Who are better equipped for this enlightenment than people of the privileged First World?
I sympathize with the suffering of these refugees, but I understand also why the Australian government won't open up their border to anybody who knock on it least it opens a flood gate experienced by the EU.
The genuine and lasting solutions here is to help stabilize the refugees' homeland so the won't need to leave.
There needs to be a global push back on the myth of a wealth making class that deserve an unproportional share of wealth generated by the combined effort of the workers and investors. Who are better equipped for this enlightenment than people of the privileged First World?
29
Thanks for drawing attention to this disgraceful situation. As an Australian living abroad I long for a leader who has the courage to gradually process the people out of these camps and start them on a new life. There is a middle ground between incarcerating people in concentration camps and letting everyone in - we can have a controlled and compassionate immigration policy but it will take time and effort which the current government seems unwilling to undertake. First step - empty those camps!
However I would be so happy if columnists stopped referring to Australia as a "vast and thinly populated land". This gives the impression that Australia could be thickly populated if only it opened its doors. But the current population is crowded into a few huge cities within the areas of arable land and water.
The vastness of Australia has little or no water, no hidden giant aquifers, no mighty river systems like the Mississippi and the Missouri etc. There really is no water out there! Realistically, immigrants go straight to the crowded cities and suburbs to look for work. Any new policies has to deal with these geographic and demographic realities not a fantasy of a huge empty land just waiting to be populated
However I would be so happy if columnists stopped referring to Australia as a "vast and thinly populated land". This gives the impression that Australia could be thickly populated if only it opened its doors. But the current population is crowded into a few huge cities within the areas of arable land and water.
The vastness of Australia has little or no water, no hidden giant aquifers, no mighty river systems like the Mississippi and the Missouri etc. There really is no water out there! Realistically, immigrants go straight to the crowded cities and suburbs to look for work. Any new policies has to deal with these geographic and demographic realities not a fantasy of a huge empty land just waiting to be populated
82
The anti-refugee comments are missing the point. Australia is not "within its rights" to enact these policies; what Australia has done with its off-shore detention is illegal.
35
Australia's actions are illegal? According to what laws and treaties? International treaties specify that refugees from any country should stop in the nearest country not at war or oppressed and apply for asylum/haven. Since Australia is thousands of miles away from these people's native habitats in Africa and Asia, across vast stretches of land and desert, crossing dozens of peaceful countries, explain how and why Australia cooperating with nearby nations to rescue and detain these illegal invaders who somehow scrape together thousands of dollars per person to pay smugglers,
despite being "poor and desperate", is illegal? it is obvious these invaders are the ones breaking the law and are not even real refugees, but economic migrants trying to get to the welfare paradise of the West, in this case Australia. Since Australia already takes in tens of thousands of Third World immigrants, including thousands of real refugees, legally every year, I don't see how stopping illegal aliens from swamping the land down under is illegal or racist or xenophobic or bigoted or whatever other code word epithets these leftist globalists want to use. The Australian government is following national and international laws and protecting her nation from invasion by illegal aliens and enforcing her immigration policies as the authorities are required to do by their Constitution, sovereign laws, and the will of the voters. So come again----who is doing what illegally? What is the hidden agenda here?
despite being "poor and desperate", is illegal? it is obvious these invaders are the ones breaking the law and are not even real refugees, but economic migrants trying to get to the welfare paradise of the West, in this case Australia. Since Australia already takes in tens of thousands of Third World immigrants, including thousands of real refugees, legally every year, I don't see how stopping illegal aliens from swamping the land down under is illegal or racist or xenophobic or bigoted or whatever other code word epithets these leftist globalists want to use. The Australian government is following national and international laws and protecting her nation from invasion by illegal aliens and enforcing her immigration policies as the authorities are required to do by their Constitution, sovereign laws, and the will of the voters. So come again----who is doing what illegally? What is the hidden agenda here?
29
They're talking about 'international law' and 'UN Agreement'. All of which the western countries might obey but everyone else, especially in the 3rd world, feel free to ignore. Unless they're given money and then they pay lip service to it.
3
Perhaps you should read the reports of the Australian Human Rights Commission on asylum seekers before making these claims. See https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees. Australian Government policies are not only in direct contravention of the Refugee Convention, but also other international conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which we are signatories. Australia has been found to be formally in breach of these conventions but as there is no legal force (unless in domestic law), there are no sanctions beyond international shaming. The Australian Constitution does not enshrine fundamental rights, Parliament is free to make oppressive laws which will be upheld by the High Court. As has happened numerous times in relation to laws on asylum seekers. But it is not illegal to seek asylum.
Both parties in Australia are to the left of the Democrats. And both parties have committed to offshore processing of asylum seekers. Welcome to the future. An overpopulated world. The third world armed with phones which shows how the west lives. Unemployment. Discontent. Mass immigration.
The west needs to decide pretty quickly how to deal with this. The Australian deterrent may be the best approach. These people denied asylum are free to go home. Most are not in fact refugees. The alternative is to Merkel.
The west needs to decide pretty quickly how to deal with this. The Australian deterrent may be the best approach. These people denied asylum are free to go home. Most are not in fact refugees. The alternative is to Merkel.
39
No it's not true to say our LNP is to the left of the Democrats. In fact some of representatives would fit right in with the GOP. Also: all or (almost all?) of those currently detained on Manus Island and Nauru have been assessed as refugees.
2
Not true at all
The ALP is centre right, probably similar to the democrats
The liberal party is far right, similar to republicans. (Liberal Party= conservative in Australia which is confusing i know)
The greens are the only major party on the left of the democrats.
The ALP is centre right, probably similar to the democrats
The liberal party is far right, similar to republicans. (Liberal Party= conservative in Australia which is confusing i know)
The greens are the only major party on the left of the democrats.
1
Shez: it's not as simple as that. The ALP has a right and a left wing. Most of the right-wing are centre-right, some are centre-left I think. The left-wing is centre-left like (most of) the Greens (some of whom are loony too far left). Of the LNP, the National Party is rabid too far right as are a majority of the Liberal Party. Then there are moderate conservatives and maybe still some small "l" liberals in its ranks who are centre-right.
Every nation has the right, even the duty, to control its own borders and who is allowed to come within them, especially in terms of who can live and work there. Mr Cohen terms Australia's methods barbaric but did Australia ask those seeking to breach its borders against its laws? What is the alternative? The evolving open borders approach wherein anybody wishing to come in must be allowed in? How is such a policy fair to the citizens of the target country?
And what is Australia supposed to do with those seeking to breach its borders by sea - catch and release them within Australia? And were they to do so, such would only increase the flood of would-be immigrants braving the seas to break Australia's laws to claim its bounty for themselves against the expressed will of Australians.
There is no God-given right to anyone to live wherever they choose against the will of those already resident there. Those that seek to defy the will of democratic governance have no just complaint when they are denied same.
And what is Australia supposed to do with those seeking to breach its borders by sea - catch and release them within Australia? And were they to do so, such would only increase the flood of would-be immigrants braving the seas to break Australia's laws to claim its bounty for themselves against the expressed will of Australians.
There is no God-given right to anyone to live wherever they choose against the will of those already resident there. Those that seek to defy the will of democratic governance have no just complaint when they are denied same.
72
Australia would be overwhelmed and unrecognizable in its current form if it opened its doors as you suggest.
Thankfully, Angela Merkel is not in charge there. The Germans now see the damage such naive policies create and are reversing course as fast as they can. Austria nearly elected a neo-Nazi president partly in response to Europe's recent immigration madness!
Australia is doing the right thing by not encouraging desperate people to spend everything they have and set to sea on a dangerous mission. Sounds like a rational and humane set of policies.
Thankfully, Angela Merkel is not in charge there. The Germans now see the damage such naive policies create and are reversing course as fast as they can. Austria nearly elected a neo-Nazi president partly in response to Europe's recent immigration madness!
Australia is doing the right thing by not encouraging desperate people to spend everything they have and set to sea on a dangerous mission. Sounds like a rational and humane set of policies.
130
Australia is under zero obligation to place the migrants on Australian soil. Keeping them offshore at least can serve as a message to others, that they will not reach their destination. If they fail to heed that message, it is their fault, not Australia's.
188
Is that really the world you want to live? One in which migrants flee their homeland and are held in concentration camps on remote islands, for the purpose of sending a message?
Maybe it is. But instead of throwing around fault, I much prefer a world that tries to find a solution.
Maybe it is. But instead of throwing around fault, I much prefer a world that tries to find a solution.
5
Better idea: send them back home.
1
Apart from the fact that we signed a UN Convention in regard to refugees, you are absolutely right
Let the refuge debates continue in hope of finding humane means to resolve the issue, for it will likely reach catastrophic proportions as climate change worsens. Fast forward 50-100 years from now when huge tropical and coastal areas, now heavily populated, become uninhabitable. Food supplies will become unstable and widespread socioeconomic instability will generate tens of millions of refuges. The ideology espoused here will be tempered by the pragmatic estimation of how many people a country can accept; that is now happening in Europe. Nice column, but is it realistic?
15
As an Australian, now living in NY, I could not agree more wholeheartedly with this article. Thank you Mr. Cohen. The refugees I have met in Australia have typically gone through all kinds of hell to reach the 'Fatal Shores'. The new life they seek is not one of living on welfare and free health care. They want more than that. They were entrepreneurial and desperate enough to get there in the first place. They want a better lives for their families than just living off the Government. Shame on all of us Australians and our small minded politicians for being so hypocritical. Everyone in Australia is a recent immigrant. Some of us just had paperwork.
21
Yes. I would say that what was Australia never should have accepted all those convicts in the past, but then for most of them the alternative to transportation was being hanged.
1
Christopher it would be helpful if you say something that makes sense whatever your view is
1
Your "gone through hell" may apply to true refugees but to the economic migrants and others? They have CHOSEN to try to benefit from the hard work of others who built their own nations just like you did in going to New York instead of helping to better your own nation.
2
Every sovereign nation has the right to decide who enters their borders!
Because the United States has failed to use this power we have Donald Trump on stage as a possible president. Immigration is a positive, but it has to be controlled immigration, so Australia is doing the right thing.
So should we.
Because the United States has failed to use this power we have Donald Trump on stage as a possible president. Immigration is a positive, but it has to be controlled immigration, so Australia is doing the right thing.
So should we.
60
Politics - heard of it Roger?
Unfortunately this issue of some seeking asylum in Australia by boat has had a toxic influence on Australia's politics for years. As it stands neither of our major parties can afford to not take a dim view of people trying to arrive here by boat seeking asylum.
When the progressive side was last elected boat arrivals increased dramatically and it introduced off-shore processing in a desperate attempt to retain power. Since the conservative side were elected they have stopped the boat arrivals and retained the offshore processing.
The people sent to Nauru and Manus Island are regrettably being used as pawns to discourage further people from seeking asylum in Australia by boat.
The progressive side is now committed to using the same tactics as the conservative side to stop the boat arrivals in the first place - but wants to send those on Nauru and Manus already to other third-party countries that will offer them asylum.
It also wants to double our humanitarian immigration intake to discourage others from seeking asylum here by boat.
It is not just Australians of several generations of heritage here of British stock who object to people arriving here by boat and then being granted asylum, but also more recent migrants from other places who resent it too because they themselves may have had to patiently wait for years before being accepted as an Australian resident.
I'd like those currently on Nauru and Manus to be granted asylum in Australia.
Unfortunately this issue of some seeking asylum in Australia by boat has had a toxic influence on Australia's politics for years. As it stands neither of our major parties can afford to not take a dim view of people trying to arrive here by boat seeking asylum.
When the progressive side was last elected boat arrivals increased dramatically and it introduced off-shore processing in a desperate attempt to retain power. Since the conservative side were elected they have stopped the boat arrivals and retained the offshore processing.
The people sent to Nauru and Manus Island are regrettably being used as pawns to discourage further people from seeking asylum in Australia by boat.
The progressive side is now committed to using the same tactics as the conservative side to stop the boat arrivals in the first place - but wants to send those on Nauru and Manus already to other third-party countries that will offer them asylum.
It also wants to double our humanitarian immigration intake to discourage others from seeking asylum here by boat.
It is not just Australians of several generations of heritage here of British stock who object to people arriving here by boat and then being granted asylum, but also more recent migrants from other places who resent it too because they themselves may have had to patiently wait for years before being accepted as an Australian resident.
I'd like those currently on Nauru and Manus to be granted asylum in Australia.
4
Open secret. Racism is alive and well in Australia. It's a shame.
4
I tell you what chief, I'm an Aussie who's lived and worked in England, the US, Hong Kong, China and Singapore and I can tell you that racism is everywhere but before you going picking on Australia you should know that we are one of the most multicultural societies on the planet and a pretty harmonious one at that. Our biggest shame is our treatment historically of the first Australians but we have made and continue to make great progress in reconciliation. Show me one Asian country that is anywhere near is open and diverse as Australia. I don't see Japan or Korea or China or Singapore taking in Syrian refugees. If we are so racist how come several Sudanese refugee boys are now playing AFL?
36
Rubbish, utter rubbish! Have you actually been to Australia?
5
According to Jared Diamond in "Collapse", the Aussie ecosystem is so fragile that it can only support three to four million people long term.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse?langua...
Other models suggest that earth can only support three billion people long term as we head to ten billion. When will the Catholic church wake up and support contraception?
When will we start addressing serious issues like over-population, global warming, poverty, automation, education, superstition, etc. instead of symptoms or trivial issues? When will we consider more charity and less war?
https://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse?langua...
Other models suggest that earth can only support three billion people long term as we head to ten billion. When will the Catholic church wake up and support contraception?
When will we start addressing serious issues like over-population, global warming, poverty, automation, education, superstition, etc. instead of symptoms or trivial issues? When will we consider more charity and less war?
56
Sounds like the Australian version of Guantanamo, but worse since it is for helpless refugees that are easy to kick around.
Typical human nature - selfishness - like the wealthy class seeking to keep their wealth and privilege exclusively to themselves - politicians and countries do the same on a state level. For those living privileged lives in the west, we want it to be exclusively ours and should not be shared - that would be redistribution - a dirty word.
Displaced people around the world will only get worse with increased population, wars, famine, global warming. The way we treat these human beings is terrible now and will only get worse.
Typical human nature - selfishness - like the wealthy class seeking to keep their wealth and privilege exclusively to themselves - politicians and countries do the same on a state level. For those living privileged lives in the west, we want it to be exclusively ours and should not be shared - that would be redistribution - a dirty word.
Displaced people around the world will only get worse with increased population, wars, famine, global warming. The way we treat these human beings is terrible now and will only get worse.
6
Yes, Australia's offshore processing centers are gruesome, but in the current political climate uncontrolled large-scale illegal immigration will upend liberal Western societies. It is important to have quotas for refugees fleeing war and genocide, and even a majority of Austrians and Germans is still willing to take in more Syrians and other genuine refugees. So before you blast "xenophobes" you should acknowledge that most Westerners have learned the lesson of the Holocaust and will not let the persecuted fend for themselves.
On the other hand, many in the developed world feel betrayed that a large number (typically much more than half) of so-called refugees are actually economic migrants who are fleeing deprivation and not death and persecution. This, in combination with one form of Islamophobia or another, is animating voters who flock to anti-liberal far right parties.
I think it's pretty rich of a Brit with an American passport to wax high and mighty about anti-immigrant sentiment when the US and Britain are barely taking in any refugees at all, because their nativist movements are strong, even without an actual refugee crisis. If the US had to manage an influx of the scale that Germany managed, Trump would win YUGE. So please mind your own business and write about Calais and illegals in the US, before you play the white knight in Australia or elsewhere.
On the other hand, many in the developed world feel betrayed that a large number (typically much more than half) of so-called refugees are actually economic migrants who are fleeing deprivation and not death and persecution. This, in combination with one form of Islamophobia or another, is animating voters who flock to anti-liberal far right parties.
I think it's pretty rich of a Brit with an American passport to wax high and mighty about anti-immigrant sentiment when the US and Britain are barely taking in any refugees at all, because their nativist movements are strong, even without an actual refugee crisis. If the US had to manage an influx of the scale that Germany managed, Trump would win YUGE. So please mind your own business and write about Calais and illegals in the US, before you play the white knight in Australia or elsewhere.
34
God forbid that anyone should move countries just because they have no food or housing! But maybe that needs more attention, and in the meantime simple decency would do.
2
Nauru and Manus Island are concentration camps. Thirteen hundred people are not going to destroy the rule of law, pillage Australian flora and fauna, drink all the water or steal all the jobs while waiting in unemployment lines. Nor is Australia's tiny immigration problem somehow analogous to massive ones in the USA, Europe or the Middle East.
All are caused by other governments in each region, and the solutions must also be regional. Many of the detainees are stateless, persecuted Rohingyas. Australia should admit them and send the bill to Burma, Bangladesh and other countries of origin. To prevent a further influx of Rohingyas, Australia should first close its concentration camps, give asylum to those its held, and then use its newfound moral authority to pressure neighboring states to act responsibly.
All are caused by other governments in each region, and the solutions must also be regional. Many of the detainees are stateless, persecuted Rohingyas. Australia should admit them and send the bill to Burma, Bangladesh and other countries of origin. To prevent a further influx of Rohingyas, Australia should first close its concentration camps, give asylum to those its held, and then use its newfound moral authority to pressure neighboring states to act responsibly.
10
So 1300 is it, eh? No more coming after that? Well, that's a piece o' cake then, ain't it?
8
You want to ask Myanmar and Bangladesh to act responsibly and you suggest sending them a bill. Um....have you been to either country? Are you abreast of Aung San Suu Kyi's latest thoughts on the Rohingya? I think this camps are dumb, cruel and expensive but your ideas while nice would not work.
I think you are missing the point that it is not about 1300 people, it is about applying legally for entry into a country and obeying its immigration laws.
The Australian policy about the camps is to let the world know that you will not be allowed into Australia unless you follow the rules !! It is not racism or cruelty - it is common sense.
The Australian policy about the camps is to let the world know that you will not be allowed into Australia unless you follow the rules !! It is not racism or cruelty - it is common sense.
9
So the very first sentence of the opinion tells the reader of the individual bias held by the writer " The Australian treatment of refugees trying to reach this vast, thinly populated country..."
Mr Cohen seems to imply that since the country is 'vast' and 'thinly populated' there is some inherent right of refugees to settle there. Would it occur to Mr Cohen that the country is 'vast' and 'thinly populated' because large parts of the country are areas that are not generally well suited for supporting large populations?
Australia's immigration policy is a rational decision based on capabilities of a society and economy to accommodate arrivals who would overwhelm existing infrastructure. Any country faced with those choices would be making similar decisions - and in fact are.
While Mr Cohen's idealism and humanitarianism is noteworthy and laudable, perhaps some reality needs to be injected into his vision.
Mr Cohen seems to imply that since the country is 'vast' and 'thinly populated' there is some inherent right of refugees to settle there. Would it occur to Mr Cohen that the country is 'vast' and 'thinly populated' because large parts of the country are areas that are not generally well suited for supporting large populations?
Australia's immigration policy is a rational decision based on capabilities of a society and economy to accommodate arrivals who would overwhelm existing infrastructure. Any country faced with those choices would be making similar decisions - and in fact are.
While Mr Cohen's idealism and humanitarianism is noteworthy and laudable, perhaps some reality needs to be injected into his vision.
86
What a display of inhumanity, and 'racism' to boot. Australia is a country that would benefit from immigration, but its leaders lack the compassion needed, and for whom the "golden rule" is just a pretty name. Cruelty personified, we shall see in the coming elections if a majority will show mercy and common sense...or not. A word of caution: before we charge Australians as cruel to the least among us, let's remember how stingy the U.S. (read, republicans) has been in admitting even fully vetted desperate refugees from war-ravaged countries we were involved too.
9
Lawful immigration has proven to be a boon to countries who can keep it under control, and employ it to its greatest advantage.
9
Australia regards itself as a migrant nation. Besides the Australian Aboriginal indigenous people whose ancestry here dates back at least 40,000 years, all other Australians are relatively recent migrants. Australia currently accepts about 200,000 immigrants a year including about 13,000 refugees.
15
Racism is a ridiculous claim - the people who come through proper channels are of the same races as boat people. The point of the policy is not to exclude certain races, but to have an orderly process.
2
it is dismaying to read the comments of the anti-refugee people. They remind me of the same comments and actions that prevented European Jews, Gypsies and Gays from being accepted into western countries. Perhaps all these anti-immigrant people would welcome the revival of the Nazi Concentration camps. Shame on all of you.
9
Your are free to create your own nation of Shangri-La.
Meanwhile i got my desillusion in the near year eve of cologne, when i realized, that it just take a few month for migrants to overthrow the public order and create a civil exceptional state that we can not handle save with much more police.
When do you pro-refugee people ever be willing to adress the challenges and ugly sides of mass-migration. Are you that kind of philanthrope, that becomes invisible or blind when things turn unfavorable ?
Meanwhile i got my desillusion in the near year eve of cologne, when i realized, that it just take a few month for migrants to overthrow the public order and create a civil exceptional state that we can not handle save with much more police.
When do you pro-refugee people ever be willing to adress the challenges and ugly sides of mass-migration. Are you that kind of philanthrope, that becomes invisible or blind when things turn unfavorable ?
46
Well written and thank you - many like me in Australia are appalled and ashamed by our treatment of refugees - please keep calling it out - neither of our two political parties seem inclined to do anything about this abhorrent period in Australia's history. Haters out there focus on the need for tough border policy - there are arguments for and against I guess - but there is absolutely no reason to have people languish for years with no hope in the camps.
15
This is another bleeding heart attempt to get people to change their views on illegal immigration and "refugees."
A nation is perfectly within its right to control its borders and decide who gets to come in and who does not. Just because we in the USA ceded this right to open, porous borders, doesn't mean that Australia needs to do the same. It is none of our business what Australia does and quite frankly we could take a lesson from them in regards to immigration.
A nation is perfectly within its right to control its borders and decide who gets to come in and who does not. Just because we in the USA ceded this right to open, porous borders, doesn't mean that Australia needs to do the same. It is none of our business what Australia does and quite frankly we could take a lesson from them in regards to immigration.
45
Once again the NYT refuses to see any difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration! Australia, like the US, welcomes thousand of immigrants who follow application rules! That is the fairest system! Unlike the US, they refuse to reward those who jump the legal immigration line and sneak in to take jobs and avoid taxes!
62
At the other extreme from Australia is Mrs. Merkel whose policy of "come one, come all," has led to the rise of right wing parties in Europe, right now in Austria, and to Britain considering Brexit.
What is the responsibility of orderly prosperous nations towards other nations which are less orderly and less prosperous? It may well be that they simply cannot absorb all the refugees from these less orderly nations. And when they take more than they can pragmatically absorb, they create social problems for themselves, while leaving the major part of the problem untouched. Witness Mr. Obama's suggestion that the US take in 10,000 Syrians, which is really a drop out of the bucket.
But at the very least the developed nations should follow a policy of "do no harm" and they have not followed such a policy. The US under Mr. Obama has not been much better than the US under Mr. Bush. It was the Obama-Clinton policy of regime change in Libya and Syria which has led to the disaster we are seeing now.
But no one is going to hold them responsible. The NYT will not because it is a Democratic newspaper. And the Republicans will not because many of them love regime change.
So we will hear more about toilets in North Carolina than about the disaster that NATO and the US have caused in the Middle East.
What is the responsibility of orderly prosperous nations towards other nations which are less orderly and less prosperous? It may well be that they simply cannot absorb all the refugees from these less orderly nations. And when they take more than they can pragmatically absorb, they create social problems for themselves, while leaving the major part of the problem untouched. Witness Mr. Obama's suggestion that the US take in 10,000 Syrians, which is really a drop out of the bucket.
But at the very least the developed nations should follow a policy of "do no harm" and they have not followed such a policy. The US under Mr. Obama has not been much better than the US under Mr. Bush. It was the Obama-Clinton policy of regime change in Libya and Syria which has led to the disaster we are seeing now.
But no one is going to hold them responsible. The NYT will not because it is a Democratic newspaper. And the Republicans will not because many of them love regime change.
So we will hear more about toilets in North Carolina than about the disaster that NATO and the US have caused in the Middle East.
8
"Scrap a policy that condemns refugees to a desperate and hopeless limbo."
so Australia should be overwhelmed with refugees? Mr. Cohen, please explain how Australia is to control this flow in a cost effective manner while simultaneously preventing itself from being overwhelmed (and offering further incentive for more refugees to come). Please, be specific.
so Australia should be overwhelmed with refugees? Mr. Cohen, please explain how Australia is to control this flow in a cost effective manner while simultaneously preventing itself from being overwhelmed (and offering further incentive for more refugees to come). Please, be specific.
82
At the heart of my problem with conservatives is their lack of empathy---where does that come from? I know, this opens me up to be called a soft-headed liberal--after all, as my conservative friends would say---this is the real world. The irony, most of these friends go to church---what's going on in that place? The level of cruelty conservatives are willing to tolerate, even condone, is startling.
14
Australia belongs to the Australians to do with as they please.
Perhaps Mr. Cohen you could describe the walls in Israel serving the same purpose as the policies in Australia. But obviously never any criticism from you.
Australia is peaceful and its citizens are employed with a mono culture enforced for hundreds of years. Those reasons alone are good enough to keep it that way.
Perhaps Mr. Cohen you could describe the walls in Israel serving the same purpose as the policies in Australia. But obviously never any criticism from you.
Australia is peaceful and its citizens are employed with a mono culture enforced for hundreds of years. Those reasons alone are good enough to keep it that way.
26
Australia in not and never was a mono culture. The over 100 groups of Aboriginal people who came there first tended to be isolated and spoke different languages! When the British came and established it as a penal colony, they sent the worst of the worst and, for a long time the white men were allowed to shoot the Aboriginals without penalty any time they wanted. Now in many parts of the country the Aboriginal people have integrated into the local society, but also have areas where they celebrate their historic traditions. And their art is much in demand, selling for thousands of dollars, not only in Australia but in the US and Europe. The Sydney Art Museum has major displays of Aboriginal Art.
While I agree it is up to the Australian people to decide who they want to allow to immigrate, I also agree with your criticism of Mr. Cohen for not taking the same philosophy in commenting on some prominent Israelis' push to start expelling non-Jewish Israeli citizens who have lived there for generations. Perhaps some of those Aboriginal people would like to expel the descendants of British immigrants!
While I agree it is up to the Australian people to decide who they want to allow to immigrate, I also agree with your criticism of Mr. Cohen for not taking the same philosophy in commenting on some prominent Israelis' push to start expelling non-Jewish Israeli citizens who have lived there for generations. Perhaps some of those Aboriginal people would like to expel the descendants of British immigrants!
7
Australia is a European nation. There is no Statue of Liberty off Australia's coast with an inscription "give us your tired, huddled masses, yearning to breath free air." And for a good reason, Australians want to keep their country "thinly populated." Actually it is not thinly populated. Outside of the coastline Australia is all desert and largely uninhabitable. New arrivals head for the major cities, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth. The refugees are largely economic refugees looking to better their lives. Fine, but how many of these refugees should Australia allow in? There are hundreds of millions of such potential refugees not far from Australia's coast in Asia.
81
Australia is not a European nation though about 90% of Australians are of European ancestry. About 8% are of Asian ancestry - chiefly Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese and Filipino. Most people trying to seek asylum here by boat are Afghani, Pakistani, Iraqi and Iranian.
3
The vast, vast majority of asylum seekers processed through the system have proven to be genuine refugees. The claim that they are "largely economic migrants" is false; it's an oft-repeated mantra bleated by Aussie radio shock-jocks, often accompanied by the equally false suggestion that anyone who can afford to pay a smuggler to get them to a place of refuge isn't truly a refugee (one does not have to be completely broke to be persecuted or threatened by civil war or sectarian violence).
3
A nation so hard hit by climate change, now and accelerating into the future, is doing the best it can to avoid being inundated by populations not of its choosing. I'm not going to argue what they should be doing instead.
24
Invoking security threat, identity and jobloss seems to have become a common refrain in the campaign rhetoric increasingly being resorted to by the right wing demagogues of late. What's strage is all this is happening in the lands of the immigrants.
9
How many refugees has India accepted?
3
More NYT soft-hearted and soft-headed blather which ignores the problems - illegal immigrants and economic refugees.
Australia is trying to stop an invasion by enforcing the laws on its books. Are the writer or respondents ready to be invaded in their home? Probably not. And hands, their opinions are hypocritical - - and not worth sharing.
Look at the EU - - or Jordan or overrun Greek islands or stretches of brooklyn and queens - - to see what happens when borders are not controlled and laws not enforced.
If you don't control your borders, you don't have a nation-state - - you have chaos.
How's that borderless state working for you, Syria, Congo, etc?
Australia is trying to stop an invasion by enforcing the laws on its books. Are the writer or respondents ready to be invaded in their home? Probably not. And hands, their opinions are hypocritical - - and not worth sharing.
Look at the EU - - or Jordan or overrun Greek islands or stretches of brooklyn and queens - - to see what happens when borders are not controlled and laws not enforced.
If you don't control your borders, you don't have a nation-state - - you have chaos.
How's that borderless state working for you, Syria, Congo, etc?
139
How, indeed, bill, did it work out for the Iriquois, Mohawk, and Wampanoag nations? And further down the coast, the Cherokee, Choctaw and Miami peoples? Or west to the Pawnee, Iowa, Kiowa, Sioux, Nez Perce, Apache tribes? And on and on and on?
"Civilization" a la the Christian religion brought wonderful benefits to all. No?
"Civilization" a la the Christian religion brought wonderful benefits to all. No?
6
What's the problem with Brooklyn and Queens?
There are many hard-working immigrants from Russia and countless other countries living there.
There are many hard-working immigrants from Russia and countless other countries living there.
2
Don't know about the EU or Jordan. But, what's wrong with Brooklyn and Queens? They are wonderful, vibrant places and the gateways to America just as they have been since early in the 20th century.
We've got enough of our own problems with immigration without sticking our nose into Australia's.
104
Australia is sparsely populated because it has sparse water resources. Don't look at the country's vast size. Most of it is parched and barren. Population increases when fresh water is available, and Australia is severely lacking in water resources. This in no way excuses the current approach to the issue of asylum seekers trying to reach Australia, but it gets tiresome to hear people outside of Australia just dividing our population by the number of square meters and claiming the country is "thinly" populated, with the assumption that it can accommodate many more. It can't, and our fragile ecosystems are being destroyed because of the current land/water over-use. (Though of course it can accommodate the paltry numbers of asylum seekers reaching our shores.)
123
Nonsense. Perth in Western Australia long ago ran out of water and only exists now due to its two desalination plants. Water along the coasts is not an issue. In the north of wa the ord river dam provides an inland sea of freaks water. The policy we have on refugees are a disgrace. One day the people responsible for this will be vilified in the way the creators of the White australia policy are.
22
Now there you go again, injecting a sense of rational realism into utopian humanitarian fantasy.....shame on you! *Cue Sarcasm Font!
4
Hmm... something smells fishy here, fires up google:
- Japan - 145,925 mi² - 127.3 million
- Australia - 2.97 million mi² - 23.13 million
Yup, booked to capacity and bursting at the seams.
Never argue a point when the facts are against you.
- Japan - 145,925 mi² - 127.3 million
- Australia - 2.97 million mi² - 23.13 million
Yup, booked to capacity and bursting at the seams.
Never argue a point when the facts are against you.
Perhaps Australians saw how well being overwhelmed by immigrants who are largely unskilled, uneducated, who do not speak the language, and do not share similar cultural values worked elsewhere.
169
that is the same argument America used to keep out the Irish and the Italians.
2
Australia is a close and valued ally of the U.S. In this era of international
terror, the U.S. needs every ally. Roger Cohen can criticize the U.K. or
the U.S., but he is off base, and out of his territory, when he travels around
the world to get to Australia.
terror, the U.S. needs every ally. Roger Cohen can criticize the U.K. or
the U.S., but he is off base, and out of his territory, when he travels around
the world to get to Australia.
17
Actually he is spot on here. Australia's treatment of these people whilst their claim for asylum is totally unacceptable. He is also spot on in his comment on the White Australia Policy which still haunts our country and affects policy and debate on a lot of issues including immigration.
Disclosure: I am an Australian working in the US.
Disclosure: I am an Australian working in the US.
24
Whilst I agree that the current policy is not perfect and there is significant room for improvement, the author of this piece seems to want to indicate that the current policy is a creation of the conservatives. In actual fact, the policy has bi-partisan support and it was actually the left leaning Labor party that reintroduced the policy of offshore processing. Why you ask? Upon it's dismantlement, there were at least 1500 deaths at sea - and those are just the ones that we know of.
Personally, I do not know what the solution to this problem is - the current policy can be seen as cruel but has been effective. I have no problems with criticisms and suggestions for improvement - what I do take offence to is this blow-in author seeming to place all of the blame on one particular side of politics.
Personally, I do not know what the solution to this problem is - the current policy can be seen as cruel but has been effective. I have no problems with criticisms and suggestions for improvement - what I do take offence to is this blow-in author seeming to place all of the blame on one particular side of politics.
2
Also - the White Australia policy that the author neatly attempts to tie to the current policy and government was actually introduced by the left-leaning Labor government and abolished by the conservatives.
1
Thank you Roger for helping to being this inhumane and reprehensible policy to light for the world. We in Australia are much better than this, but we seem to need the help of a civil world to bring our so-called leaders to heal and end this tragedy imposed on people who least deserve it.
11
Australia has less than 23 million people on an entire continent the size of the 48 states of the Continental US. It is mostly empty.
Their government fears to encourage a migration which could utterly swamp them, as migrants have overwhelmed Jordan, amounting to half the population counting all the different groups.
That does not justify treating people badly.
It does not justify excluding refugees with legitimate claims under Australia's own laws.
However, it does explain apparent government paranoia. It really could get entirely out of hand.
The ultimate solution, as with the EU, is to stop the migration at its source by ending the regime change wars that drive them from their homes. But Australia instead supports those wars, as does the EU.
They participate in the doing, then don't want to participate in the consequences.
Here at home in the US, in our Presidential race, we have one candidate who promises to act just as badly or worse, and another who calls in flocks of neocons and would just make a lot more refugees without any solution ever mentioned. We are as irresponsible under either one as is Australia, and on a much larger scale.
Their government fears to encourage a migration which could utterly swamp them, as migrants have overwhelmed Jordan, amounting to half the population counting all the different groups.
That does not justify treating people badly.
It does not justify excluding refugees with legitimate claims under Australia's own laws.
However, it does explain apparent government paranoia. It really could get entirely out of hand.
The ultimate solution, as with the EU, is to stop the migration at its source by ending the regime change wars that drive them from their homes. But Australia instead supports those wars, as does the EU.
They participate in the doing, then don't want to participate in the consequences.
Here at home in the US, in our Presidential race, we have one candidate who promises to act just as badly or worse, and another who calls in flocks of neocons and would just make a lot more refugees without any solution ever mentioned. We are as irresponsible under either one as is Australia, and on a much larger scale.
34
The writer was obviously loathe to mention the most relevant fact, so he swept it under the carpet in one sentence, but the fact remains: Australia's system discourages people from trying to go to Australia, with the tragic consequences we see almost monthly in the Mediterranean. Two people have died under the Australian system. How many thousands have died under the European system? The answer is obvious, so how can Cohen conclude that the former is more cruel than the latter? Simple: ideology. He views the European system as "liberal" and the Australian system as "conservative." Therefore, no matter how many children wash up on beaches under the European system, it's gets the thumbs-up from Cohen, and no matter how tiny the death toll under the Australian system, Cohen boos it.
This is the danger of ideology.
This is the danger of ideology.
112
The ultimate solution, as with the EU, is to stop the migration at its source by ending the regime change wars that drive them from their homes. But Australia instead supports those wars, as does the EU
The civil wars in SYria and Libya sure were not part of regime changes instigated by the West, as much as it would fit the narrative. These wars, along with the Arab SPring, were internal uprisingings against dictatorial regimes. Plus many parts of this world, along with most of the third world, have problems such as excessive population growth, repression, etc. that are homegrown.
YOu need to realize that the West is not to blame for the bulk of these refugees but other factors are.
The civil wars in SYria and Libya sure were not part of regime changes instigated by the West, as much as it would fit the narrative. These wars, along with the Arab SPring, were internal uprisingings against dictatorial regimes. Plus many parts of this world, along with most of the third world, have problems such as excessive population growth, repression, etc. that are homegrown.
YOu need to realize that the West is not to blame for the bulk of these refugees but other factors are.
19
Mark - Australia is mostly empty because it is mostly desert or semi-desert. It is the driest continent on Earth (bar Antarctica). Probably the best way to indicate the contrast in fertility between the US and Australia succinctly is to point out that the largest river of the US is the Mississippi River and it has an average discharge of 16,790 cubic metres per second. The largest river of Australia is the Murray River and it has an average discharge of 767 cubic metres per second. Australia has rivers whose water never reaches the sea.
30