I apologise for not getting back to my detractors any earlier but, one would understand, on a day like today, one is a little tied up… joyfully, of course!
On the issue of refugees and immigration: Let me point out that I have never ever suggested that Australia’s doors should be left wide open for every barbarian to enter. Just as I would never open the doors of my own house to just anyone. These doors are, after all, one and the same thing.
Instead, here’s a bit of what I did say on the “little Johnny…” thread: “Of course, we need a sensible migration policy: one drawn with humanitarian and environmental principles rather than economic but we mustn't lose sight of the fact that there are people outside our shores who ask for our help and, if bringing them here is what will help, then let's give them the same chance this country has given us.”
And it was in answer to redgreek’s “…and anyone wanting to move to Oz must go through the right channels, and ultimately have similar values and integrate into society.”
IMHO, it is a racist statement, a cliché by now, that smacks of what I had to put up with when I and my family first got here, 50 years ago. What right channels? Look all around Zimbabwe, for one of many examples and tell me where those “right channels” are situated, then go and direct those who are fleeing for their lives to head that way! Here’s redgreek’s view of what “we” (ie, those of us already here) are like: “The difference is that we have become Australian. We have integrated into society. The problem I have is when certain people move here, and make no effort to integrate and even threaten the livelihood of Aussies.”
Cliches again! “we have become Australian!” What on earth does that mean? Did you abandon your religion? Your language? Your identity? Your History? Your morality? Your understanding of what is legal and what is not? Is that what you also expect from everyone else? Should we close down all mosques? Synagogues? Temples? Have everyone dress in a suit and tie? Should we ask the muslim women to take off their scarves? The Jews to throw away their skull caps? Should we insist that all blacks do a Mike Jackson? What exactly does it mean, “we have become Australian?” These are Hanson’s vacuous slogans and call to arms for the narrow-minded rednecks. “They threaten our way of life?” How so? We have laws and if “they” break them “they” get punished. Just like everybody else –unless, of course one is to treat “them” in a different, prejudiced way. How does a government come up with laws like these and, indeed, what sort of govn’t would that be, what sort of country would it become?
The great mistake made by many is that they confuse the phenomena of refugees and migrants. Two totally different species of friends: The first lot need us and the second lot we need them; and the accommodation of both begins with NUMBERS; not race, not religion, not sexual predilection but with objective calculation of numbers. A specialized govn’t department works out the numbers based on Australia’s environmental and social sustainability. I have no idea and so would never presume to offer an opinion as to what those numbers ought to be. Indeed, I’m often thoroughly bemused by the variation in the numbers when I hear experts talk about them. They vary from none to 50million by 2030! I mean, how could I, a mere mortal, ever hope to work out a feasible formula when the experts differ so much? But that’s where I’d begin: Agree on the numbers first.
Then look at our own needs –as regards to immigration- and look at the needs of those who try to escape torture or slaughter all around the world, as regards to asylum seekers. Right now, I’d be quite lenient towards the Zimbabweans and the Iraqis, and so on down the line until our numbers are filled. Cerhob raises the question “if we determine a maximum number what do we do with the one after that number is reached?” It hasn’t happened yet, cerhob and I doubt it ever will, though, we have proved that shoving them in a concentration camp for years and years is not very smart. What I wouldn’t do –and that’s where my passion lies- is to start rejecting people because of the complexion of their skin, the bend of their religion, the direction of their sexuality, their gender, their looks. What I might look for is the urgency of their need and what I might try and do is communicate with refugee managing bodies around the world and do my best to sort out the claimant’s situation. And I would do that pronto. It is blaming the victim to suggest that “lawyers waste our time and our precious, tax dollars.” This is still a country where judgment begins with the presumption of innocence, not with the word of a bureaucrat with a “fairness bypass.” It should only take as long as it is necessary to take and in the meantime we should be as hospitable as we can.
Immigration is a different matter again, only in that we do have the luxury of choosing (pilfering and poaching, really) people from the rest of the planet who have particular skills –and THAT’S the main criterion- which are needed here. Again, we have the luxury of choice and the time and ability to check the backgrounds of these people, in respect of criminal records and the like.
I’m sorry this is a hastened and prolix explanation of my belief but it’s the best I can do right now. I understand thoroughly that emotions are strong on both sides of this argument and that we, the laymen and women can only talk about it and indulge in our emotions but I’m sincerely hoping that the govn’t number crunches bring about a sensible policy on both of these different issues: asylum seekers and migrants, based on an objective and unbiased study of the needs of both.
