The boat people by GDL

The boat people: refugees, illegals or people smuggling?

By GDL

The controversy surrounding the boat people lies in the paradox that the history of migration to Australia started in 1788 with the boat people coming from England They were both convicts and free people. Some even came for religious freedom. The irony at the time was, they did not have a visa and came as invaders of the land habited by the aborigines. Yes, invaders because it has now been proved that Australia was not a “terra nullius” as the English, at the time, wanted us to believe. They can even be called “illegals” in modern terms.

The English and Europeans and even those coming from the colonies like Mauritius at the time, did not need a visa to settle down in the land down under up and until Federation. In the 1940s many workers, particularly from Italy came to build up the infrastructures. The Italians were escaping not persecution, but recession from Europe. Many also went to the USA at the time.
Japanese after the wars were granted permission to stay in Australia for having fought against Japan invasion. Were they the first refugees?
Many Germans and Jews came to Australia during and after the world wars to escape persecutions. They can also be called refugees.
Then came the official mass refugees from Lebanon, Vietnam, and more recently from Sudan. There are also those pacific islanders who come by the New Zealand's backdoor, are they also illegals?
In the 60s and 70s many more came by boat from everywhere but this time with a visa. Those from Latin America were definitely escaping dictatorial regimes prevailing at the time in a turmoil South America, with dictators like Pinochet, Somoza, Castro, Perone and others…
The great exodus of the 60s and early 70s to Australia happened for obvious reasons; the migrants were fleeing from political unrest. Can they also be qualified as “refugees”? The creoles of Mauritius were selling everything to embark on the boats to escape the Creole bashing by the newly Hindu establishment in Mauritius. They can also be called “refugees” of modern time.
Anyone who say or can prove that he or she is ‘persecuted” in his/her country for religious, ethnic or political reasons can claim refugee status under the UNHCR.
It this a too simplistic definition? How can the Australian authorities contest if someone come by boat and claim refugee status? Specially when they have deliberately destroyed their papers.
Note that it is not only those few who come by boats who claim refugee status in Australia but many who come with a tourist or visitor visa. These people having paid a return ticket, having proved to the Australia High Commission that that have financial means to cover their short stay in Australia, but as soon as they land in Australia do not want to go back.
According to the Department of Immigration, 80 % of the over-stayers have applied for a refugee visa and the rest 20 % have no intention to surrender to the authorities.They are harboured by relatives and claim refugee status. Is this fair and correct? Mind you that if some fail to prove that their lives are in danger if they go back, many others finally obtain permanent residency.
Where does that leave us concerning the boat people who are becoming the political football of Labor, Liberal and Greens ? No one seems to have a solution to the problem. Onshore or offshore processing, TPV or PPV or turning back the boats will not solve the problem as long as there is a market for people smugglers.
The boat people are definitely queue jumpers who think they have no chance going by the door because of the long processing queues at the UNHCR offices. Are they to be blamed when they learned that most of the boat people have finally obtained permanent residency in Australia?  For them it is worth paying people smugglers and the corrupt Indonesia police, get on a boat and make way to Australia. The people smugglers are very smart, they follow closely the political debate in Australia and know exactly how and when to sell their product. Their rate of success, be it under Liberals and more so under labour government, is high. So why should they stop as long as there is a market and a good product to sell to the “refugees’? 
Australian taxpayers are surely disgusted with the continuous saga of boat people. While the labor government is bleeding over the controversy, the Liberals are making a mockery of the situation and drawing political capital out of it, as every new boat that arrives is a nail in the coffin of Julia Gillard and the Labor government.

So why should the Libs collaborate with the failed policy of government to save them?  This is where Julia becomes ridiculous in trying to get the collaboration of the Libs for the Malaysian solution. The Libs have enough grounds not to collaborate. They want the government to implement the Howard policy which “worked” to score more political points.  

The core of the problem is that endemic corruption in Indonesia is favoring people smuggling.  It has to be stopped. The boats have to be stopped from Indonesia. But can one stop corruption in Indonesia ?? You must be joking!!!

Even if it seems that the Government is giving grounds, as far a reintroducing TPV and considering Nauru, they will surely not adopt the only policy advocated by the Libs. It would be ‘loosing face” towards the public. But what has labor got to loose when they seem to have already lost everything?

Someone who is drowning does not choose which hand to catch be it a friend or a foe. In these circumstances it is better to try something rather than continue to bang heads against the wall.
Julia and the Labor government has nothing to loose by embracing the Libs policy of
TPV and turning back the boats. Unless they do not care about the millions of our dollars being spent on Christmas Island and with the new refugee centres.

But taxpayers that we are  do.!