It's easy to lose friends talking about border protection
Alright, when I started this website, this was one topic, due to its complexity, that I thought I would avoid. Now I’m going to have a go at talking about it. I know it is an extremely controversial and politicised subject that people feel very strongly about, so I am no doubt going to invite criticism from both the left and the right of the political spectrum, but I feel it is time to express a view. I realise I can’t hope to cover the full breadth of this issue with a single essay. I have limited the first section to my argument for change to our refugee intake and offshore detention policy, while the latter half will outline the challenges inherent in such a course of action.
My position
I do believe that Australia must have control of its borders. For a number of reasons, it is important that the government is able to monitor and control all entry and exit from the country. I also want to add that I believe the soldiers and sailors who serve in this capacity do so professionally and this essay is in no way intended as a criticism or devaluation of their service.
My innate concept of fairness has some problem with the idea that those people who try to get here by boat may succeed where those who wait to come by the government’s preferred method will fail or take longer. I have a number of friends who have served aboard the ships that patrol our borders and I believe them when they tell me that many of those coming by boat are coming for economic not safety reasons. I also believe the stories I have been told of the strategies people smugglers use to manipulate our laws and our media. So I agree that government policy needs to be mindful of the opportunism of people smuggling operations and recognise a need for strict guidelines around border protection, that advantage those with the patience to use the government’s preferred method of seeking asylum.
Having said all that, I am strongly in favour of closing down the offshore detention centres and am equally strongly in favour of using some of the money saved to significantly increase Australia’s refugee intake. This is why:
The failure of offshore processing
There has been almost no investigation into the detention camps that has found them satisfactory. Amnesty International, the UN, our own Human Rights Commissioner and our own senate inquiry have all levelled varying levels of criticism at these facilities, while the PNG government is pursuing several detention centre employees to face criminal charges. The government’s only real response has been to invoke the Border Force Act, which won’t improve the situation, it will just keep violations from being reported on. I agree border protection is a complex issue, but it seems clear that the pacific solution is no solution at all.
The morality of what is happening in these detention camps is ethically questionable at best. The underlying principle of this strategy seems to be that if we make conditions horrible enough it will be deterrent to others trying to come here. Are we ok with making an example of these people like this? It seems to be on very shaky ethical and logical premises.
Is it a deterrent or not? If it is meant as a deterrent, why invoke the Border Force Act? It can’t deter people, if they don’t know what is happening there. This seems a tacit acknowledgement by the government that it knows that using the misfortune of the current detainees to deter future asylum seekers is morally wrong. To date, more people have died in the Manus Island camp than have been resettled from it. How can that be an acceptable outcome? It isn’t.
Even if you are morally ok with what is happening on Manus Island, pragmatically you should be puzzled. It is not like the offshore detention camps make any sort of economic sense. The figures quoted for the cost of the detention, including the sweeteners to the PNG government make this a highly expensive operation. It would be cheaper- still costly, but cheaper than what we are doing so far- to run on home soil (which we have plenty of). As well as being cheaper, we would actually be using the money developing our own facilities and infrastructure, as well as employing people in our own country. This would mean all of this expenditure would not be lost to the economy and would actually provide more GST revenue back to the government. Instead it was reported last week that 55 million dollars will be paid to Cambodia to resettle as few as four refugees- I’d have done that at my house for much less!
Since it doesn’t make a lot of sense economically, it kind of brings me back to the deterrent angle, which even the government realises is problematic, as discussed above. But maybe it’s effective. Perhaps people feel the ends justifies the means. We won’t know of course, due the government imposed media blackout around border patrol operations, but even if it was effective, I feel the cost is too high.
There is of course another deterrent to discourage people trying to come to Australia by boat. One which does not raise the kind of moral concerns that prompts the government to hide its actions with legislated secrecy. Significantly increase the amount of refugees accepted through UN programs so that asylum seekers see these as viable avenues to use.
Is there room in Australia for the appropriate refugee processing facilities and to handle an influx in our population? You would have to think yes. We have a land mass similar to continental USA and population about a tenth of it. Even allowing for the fact that much of the inland area is barren desert, there is still a lot of land. Many regions of Australia, including Tasmania, are actually aiming to increase population and would be grateful to resettle refugees. I realise the attraction towards the employment opportunities in the larger cities would be problematic, once refugees were released into the community, but perhaps there could be a way of granting asylum, linked to an undertaking to reside in a particular region for a fixed period. For those concerned about the increased tax and welfare burden, it could even be linked to employment on national infrastructure programs, so you’d be still getting something for your tax dollar. Tony Abbott wanted to be the infrastructure PM. If done right, this could be his chance. Since World War 2 Australia, has taken in a number of refugee intakes and they have been important to our growth as a nation- a lot of infrastructure such as the Snowy Power Scheme, was largely constructed with refugee labour. There has always been opposition from a section of the community, but if we hadn’t taken these people in, it would have been to our detriment in the long term.
I think the reasons outlined above are a strong argument for an end to offshore processing and to use some of those funds for increasing our refugee intake. However politicians and proponents of such a policy also need to accept that there are concerns within the community about it. While some of it is a little more than blown up hysteria, other concerns have some merit and those who argue for increased migration would do well to seek to address these objections, rather than ignoring or downplaying them. If you want to be heard by those who initially disagree with you, you must show you are hearing their concerns as well. I would like to propose a mature national discussion where we admit that there are challenges to increasing our intake, but that it is our responsibility as humans to bear a small amount of inconvenience to save others from terrible suffering. In the second half of this essay, I have made a list of the more cogent objections that arise against more humane policies towards asylum seekers, attempting to consider them in an unbiased manner.
They’re not all refugees- if they were real refugees they would just go the nearest safe country.
When discussing those who come here by boat, this is a difficult comment to argue with, as there are genuinely many countries refugees might flee to between their homes and Australia. However many of these countries are hardly safe or welcoming of refugees, being either ill-equipped or just unwilling to help. That doesn’t prove asylum seekers are not genuine or make it ok for us to turn our backs as well. Consider the desperation that it takes to get on these dangerous boats- these people aren’t coming here because they like our beaches or our TV channels (I can’t imagine anyone likes our TV anymore).
It is important to show a little empathy here. Maybe they have made a mistake trying to get to Australia instead of a closer country. Did they even realise how far away it was? Do we punish them for the rest of their lives over it, or do we recognise that we ourselves might have occasionally made mistakes and have received forgiveness in the end. Yes there are probably those who aren’t real refugees- that was certainly the opinion of those I have spoken to who have worked in border protection- but that is something for ASIS and DFAT to ascertain, while the prospective refugees are kept humanely in an Australian facility. Admittedly, court action from refugee advocates can also make it time-consuming and costly to repatriate those who are found not to be genuine refugees from Australia. I am not sure how I feel about this, as in one sense I am frustrated by the speed that our courts work at, but in the same breath, if I was ever falsely convicted of something, I would be glad of every avenue of appeal available in our legal system. Perhaps legislation could be passed to expedite these proceedings, but I would think carefully before advocating anything that denied others the rights of appeal I would want myself.
Death at sea and people smuggling
To me, this is one of the most powerful arguments against opening our borders, even though I believe it used in a mostly disingenuous way by politicians. I am strongly concerned by the prospect of more people trying to come here by boat, if our borders are perceived as more open and especially with the added incentive of appeal through the courts outlined in the previous paragraph. Along with the increase in drownings, over time there is the eventual possibility of numbers of arrivals rising to an unsustainable level (although we are a long way from this and could handle a lot more refugees than were arriving even at its peak during the Gillard government). This is a possibility that creates a real tension for me and I admittedly don’t have the answer, but I don’t think the current solution is acceptable either. I don’t think I would be turning boats around. I’d be confiscating them and jailing the people smugglers, while I assessed the claims of the asylum seekers in Australian facilities. Apart from regional efforts targeting the actual people smuggling networks, the only other way to deter people from trying to get to Australia this way is to make our preferred method of seeking asylum more effective and more attractive to refugees. This means increasing our intake.
Terrorism
Another concern with allowing more refugees into Australia is that we may inadvertently make it easier for terrorists to enter our country. Depending on the type of detention facilities, this could be a legitimate concern and one that would probably necessitate more resources to ASIS and ASIO to satisfy people they can keep us safe. However I also believe fears of terrorism are overstated and exploited for political purposes. As I have written elsewhere, my fears of dying in a terrorist attack are a fair way behind my fears of dying at the hands of a drunk driver, or a coward punch on a night out. It is also worth noting that I am not asking for our borders to be opened without safeguards or controls. I am just saying whatever processing facilities the government feels are required to deal with those claiming asylum should be located in Australia and subject to Australian laws. I can’t see that significantly increasing the risk of terrorist attacks in this country.
Why us, shouldn’t other countries be doing more?
Admittedly we can’t pick up the slack for all the countries that won’t do anything. But if you believe this, you must also believe that others can’t pick up the slack for us. The only way is if all countries do their bit. As with a number of other global issues, Australia is far from picking up the slack. We are dragging the chain and drawing international condemnation for it. It is time we got in front of the curve on one of these issue and, as Gandi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Using some clever wording, the prime minister has made the disingenuous claim that Australia already resettles more refugees through the UNHCR per capita than any other country. Even if this actually made us a world-leader in the resettlement of refugees (which it doesn’t), it misses the point. Instead of asking, “Haven’t we done enough?” in the face of the tragedy, we should be asking, “Can we do more?”
We can’t afford it
The short term cost of accepting refugees is considerable. But as I have said above, it can actually become more of a benefit in the longer term, as Australia seeks to build its population and tax base to meet the needs of an ageing workforce. A rather simplistic argument that is sometimes raised is that there is not enough money in the budget as it is and we cannot afford to take them until we have dealt with other national priorities. What makes refugees more important than our own homeless? The answer is nothing, but they are also no less important either. Being born in Australia does not make us magically more deserving of government-funded healthcare, education and welfare that most of us have taken advantage of at some time in our lives. Adding the financial cost of supporting more refugees to our current budget may be challenging for the nation and may even come at a cost in the form of raised taxes, special levies or reduced government funding for certain programs. As difficult a decision as that may be for the government, the easy choice isn’t always right and making the right choice- while not always easy- always is. This might be one of those times we have to make a difficult choice.
Cultural differences
A common complaint from the right (Pauline Hanson- who I would be embarrassed to have championing my views- was on about it only yesterday) is that refugees and immigrants bring violence and confrontation into our communities. When this comes from people who are very selective with when they choose to uphold Australian values, it is just bigoted hypocrisy. However there is also a side to this argument that has a little more merit. Some arrivals have come from cultures with a very different attitude towards women and it can be difficult for men from these cultures to put their existing prejudices aside. Additionally, many refugees have endured considerable trauma fleeing their country or in the time spent in refugee camps. This can make some of them unpredictable and prone to violence. I don’t dispute these concerns and have encountered a reasonable amount of anecdotal evidence supporting them. However refugees and immigrants from other cultures don’t have the monopoly on violent behaviour or being disrespectful towards women. Plenty of Australians can be just as dangerous, so let’s not pretend we are keeping society safe by keeping refugees out. Still, this does put an additional financial cost of increasing refugee intake, in the form of additional mental health support and community policing programs. Aside from that, my best recommendation for how to address these types of problems would be stronger sentencing powers of judges dealing with any violent offenders, but that is definitely another issue.
Ethnic enclaves
Another complaint of those against increased immigration is the tendency of ethnic groups to set up their own enclaves, which white Australians find exclusive and threatening. There is a certain irony here, as a lot of the reason these enclaves exist is because immigrants seek each other out for support as they find Australian society confusing and threatening. The best way to break these barriers down is for everyone to take responsibility for being open and accepting of other cultures, not telling people they are being Australian wrong. Still, that is not going to happen overnight and I recognise that once established, these enclaves do cause a certain amount of discomfort in the community. In reality, it is something of a first world problem though. A vast majority of the refugees and immigrants from other cultures I have dealt with have been really good people but if you are uncomfortable around groups of them, that discomfort is a small price to bear as a nation, for fulfilling our humanitarian obligations.
Employment
I am sensitive that unemployment is a concern for people in the uncertain national economy, but this is pretty poor reason to be against increased refugee intake. It is pretty simple really. If you are afraid you will lose your job to someone who is going to work harder than you, then work harder or upgrade your qualifications. You already have the advantage of being a native English speaker and not looking middle-eastern. I’m not being racist here- quite the opposite- just pointing out that I have no doubt refugees and immigrants will face discrimination in the workforce. Increased refugee intakes actually create increased employment to cater to them. Obviously this is still at commonwealth expense, but as explained above, I feel there would be some money to spare if we discontinued our use of offshore processing facilities.
Summary (in case you thought the whole essay looked a bit long and want to skip to the end)
I don’t claim to have all the answers to the refugee crisis that is engulfing the world. Many Australians have a number of concerns about the protection of our borders and our refugee intake. A lot of these concerns are a little exaggerated by our hyperbolic media and political figures, but some of the concerns are still valid and will need to be considered in the formation of future public policy in this area. While I don’t have a unified answer to the whole issue, I am confident when I say that our costly program of offshore detention should be discontinued, as the justification for its existence cannot be logically defended. I also strongly believe Australia has the capacity and obligation to accept dramatically more refugees, not just in answer to the Syrian crisis, but also on a yearly basis to provide viable and safer alternatives to those who would attempt to come here by boat. Even allowing for the additional funds freed up from offshore processing, this may put an unasked for impost on the Australian taxpayer, but sometimes we have to give something up to maintain our morality and integrity.
My position
I do believe that Australia must have control of its borders. For a number of reasons, it is important that the government is able to monitor and control all entry and exit from the country. I also want to add that I believe the soldiers and sailors who serve in this capacity do so professionally and this essay is in no way intended as a criticism or devaluation of their service.
My innate concept of fairness has some problem with the idea that those people who try to get here by boat may succeed where those who wait to come by the government’s preferred method will fail or take longer. I have a number of friends who have served aboard the ships that patrol our borders and I believe them when they tell me that many of those coming by boat are coming for economic not safety reasons. I also believe the stories I have been told of the strategies people smugglers use to manipulate our laws and our media. So I agree that government policy needs to be mindful of the opportunism of people smuggling operations and recognise a need for strict guidelines around border protection, that advantage those with the patience to use the government’s preferred method of seeking asylum.
Having said all that, I am strongly in favour of closing down the offshore detention centres and am equally strongly in favour of using some of the money saved to significantly increase Australia’s refugee intake. This is why:
The failure of offshore processing
There has been almost no investigation into the detention camps that has found them satisfactory. Amnesty International, the UN, our own Human Rights Commissioner and our own senate inquiry have all levelled varying levels of criticism at these facilities, while the PNG government is pursuing several detention centre employees to face criminal charges. The government’s only real response has been to invoke the Border Force Act, which won’t improve the situation, it will just keep violations from being reported on. I agree border protection is a complex issue, but it seems clear that the pacific solution is no solution at all.
The morality of what is happening in these detention camps is ethically questionable at best. The underlying principle of this strategy seems to be that if we make conditions horrible enough it will be deterrent to others trying to come here. Are we ok with making an example of these people like this? It seems to be on very shaky ethical and logical premises.
Is it a deterrent or not? If it is meant as a deterrent, why invoke the Border Force Act? It can’t deter people, if they don’t know what is happening there. This seems a tacit acknowledgement by the government that it knows that using the misfortune of the current detainees to deter future asylum seekers is morally wrong. To date, more people have died in the Manus Island camp than have been resettled from it. How can that be an acceptable outcome? It isn’t.
Even if you are morally ok with what is happening on Manus Island, pragmatically you should be puzzled. It is not like the offshore detention camps make any sort of economic sense. The figures quoted for the cost of the detention, including the sweeteners to the PNG government make this a highly expensive operation. It would be cheaper- still costly, but cheaper than what we are doing so far- to run on home soil (which we have plenty of). As well as being cheaper, we would actually be using the money developing our own facilities and infrastructure, as well as employing people in our own country. This would mean all of this expenditure would not be lost to the economy and would actually provide more GST revenue back to the government. Instead it was reported last week that 55 million dollars will be paid to Cambodia to resettle as few as four refugees- I’d have done that at my house for much less!
Since it doesn’t make a lot of sense economically, it kind of brings me back to the deterrent angle, which even the government realises is problematic, as discussed above. But maybe it’s effective. Perhaps people feel the ends justifies the means. We won’t know of course, due the government imposed media blackout around border patrol operations, but even if it was effective, I feel the cost is too high.
There is of course another deterrent to discourage people trying to come to Australia by boat. One which does not raise the kind of moral concerns that prompts the government to hide its actions with legislated secrecy. Significantly increase the amount of refugees accepted through UN programs so that asylum seekers see these as viable avenues to use.
Is there room in Australia for the appropriate refugee processing facilities and to handle an influx in our population? You would have to think yes. We have a land mass similar to continental USA and population about a tenth of it. Even allowing for the fact that much of the inland area is barren desert, there is still a lot of land. Many regions of Australia, including Tasmania, are actually aiming to increase population and would be grateful to resettle refugees. I realise the attraction towards the employment opportunities in the larger cities would be problematic, once refugees were released into the community, but perhaps there could be a way of granting asylum, linked to an undertaking to reside in a particular region for a fixed period. For those concerned about the increased tax and welfare burden, it could even be linked to employment on national infrastructure programs, so you’d be still getting something for your tax dollar. Tony Abbott wanted to be the infrastructure PM. If done right, this could be his chance. Since World War 2 Australia, has taken in a number of refugee intakes and they have been important to our growth as a nation- a lot of infrastructure such as the Snowy Power Scheme, was largely constructed with refugee labour. There has always been opposition from a section of the community, but if we hadn’t taken these people in, it would have been to our detriment in the long term.
I think the reasons outlined above are a strong argument for an end to offshore processing and to use some of those funds for increasing our refugee intake. However politicians and proponents of such a policy also need to accept that there are concerns within the community about it. While some of it is a little more than blown up hysteria, other concerns have some merit and those who argue for increased migration would do well to seek to address these objections, rather than ignoring or downplaying them. If you want to be heard by those who initially disagree with you, you must show you are hearing their concerns as well. I would like to propose a mature national discussion where we admit that there are challenges to increasing our intake, but that it is our responsibility as humans to bear a small amount of inconvenience to save others from terrible suffering. In the second half of this essay, I have made a list of the more cogent objections that arise against more humane policies towards asylum seekers, attempting to consider them in an unbiased manner.
They’re not all refugees- if they were real refugees they would just go the nearest safe country.
When discussing those who come here by boat, this is a difficult comment to argue with, as there are genuinely many countries refugees might flee to between their homes and Australia. However many of these countries are hardly safe or welcoming of refugees, being either ill-equipped or just unwilling to help. That doesn’t prove asylum seekers are not genuine or make it ok for us to turn our backs as well. Consider the desperation that it takes to get on these dangerous boats- these people aren’t coming here because they like our beaches or our TV channels (I can’t imagine anyone likes our TV anymore).
It is important to show a little empathy here. Maybe they have made a mistake trying to get to Australia instead of a closer country. Did they even realise how far away it was? Do we punish them for the rest of their lives over it, or do we recognise that we ourselves might have occasionally made mistakes and have received forgiveness in the end. Yes there are probably those who aren’t real refugees- that was certainly the opinion of those I have spoken to who have worked in border protection- but that is something for ASIS and DFAT to ascertain, while the prospective refugees are kept humanely in an Australian facility. Admittedly, court action from refugee advocates can also make it time-consuming and costly to repatriate those who are found not to be genuine refugees from Australia. I am not sure how I feel about this, as in one sense I am frustrated by the speed that our courts work at, but in the same breath, if I was ever falsely convicted of something, I would be glad of every avenue of appeal available in our legal system. Perhaps legislation could be passed to expedite these proceedings, but I would think carefully before advocating anything that denied others the rights of appeal I would want myself.
Death at sea and people smuggling
To me, this is one of the most powerful arguments against opening our borders, even though I believe it used in a mostly disingenuous way by politicians. I am strongly concerned by the prospect of more people trying to come here by boat, if our borders are perceived as more open and especially with the added incentive of appeal through the courts outlined in the previous paragraph. Along with the increase in drownings, over time there is the eventual possibility of numbers of arrivals rising to an unsustainable level (although we are a long way from this and could handle a lot more refugees than were arriving even at its peak during the Gillard government). This is a possibility that creates a real tension for me and I admittedly don’t have the answer, but I don’t think the current solution is acceptable either. I don’t think I would be turning boats around. I’d be confiscating them and jailing the people smugglers, while I assessed the claims of the asylum seekers in Australian facilities. Apart from regional efforts targeting the actual people smuggling networks, the only other way to deter people from trying to get to Australia this way is to make our preferred method of seeking asylum more effective and more attractive to refugees. This means increasing our intake.
Terrorism
Another concern with allowing more refugees into Australia is that we may inadvertently make it easier for terrorists to enter our country. Depending on the type of detention facilities, this could be a legitimate concern and one that would probably necessitate more resources to ASIS and ASIO to satisfy people they can keep us safe. However I also believe fears of terrorism are overstated and exploited for political purposes. As I have written elsewhere, my fears of dying in a terrorist attack are a fair way behind my fears of dying at the hands of a drunk driver, or a coward punch on a night out. It is also worth noting that I am not asking for our borders to be opened without safeguards or controls. I am just saying whatever processing facilities the government feels are required to deal with those claiming asylum should be located in Australia and subject to Australian laws. I can’t see that significantly increasing the risk of terrorist attacks in this country.
Why us, shouldn’t other countries be doing more?
Admittedly we can’t pick up the slack for all the countries that won’t do anything. But if you believe this, you must also believe that others can’t pick up the slack for us. The only way is if all countries do their bit. As with a number of other global issues, Australia is far from picking up the slack. We are dragging the chain and drawing international condemnation for it. It is time we got in front of the curve on one of these issue and, as Gandi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Using some clever wording, the prime minister has made the disingenuous claim that Australia already resettles more refugees through the UNHCR per capita than any other country. Even if this actually made us a world-leader in the resettlement of refugees (which it doesn’t), it misses the point. Instead of asking, “Haven’t we done enough?” in the face of the tragedy, we should be asking, “Can we do more?”
We can’t afford it
The short term cost of accepting refugees is considerable. But as I have said above, it can actually become more of a benefit in the longer term, as Australia seeks to build its population and tax base to meet the needs of an ageing workforce. A rather simplistic argument that is sometimes raised is that there is not enough money in the budget as it is and we cannot afford to take them until we have dealt with other national priorities. What makes refugees more important than our own homeless? The answer is nothing, but they are also no less important either. Being born in Australia does not make us magically more deserving of government-funded healthcare, education and welfare that most of us have taken advantage of at some time in our lives. Adding the financial cost of supporting more refugees to our current budget may be challenging for the nation and may even come at a cost in the form of raised taxes, special levies or reduced government funding for certain programs. As difficult a decision as that may be for the government, the easy choice isn’t always right and making the right choice- while not always easy- always is. This might be one of those times we have to make a difficult choice.
Cultural differences
A common complaint from the right (Pauline Hanson- who I would be embarrassed to have championing my views- was on about it only yesterday) is that refugees and immigrants bring violence and confrontation into our communities. When this comes from people who are very selective with when they choose to uphold Australian values, it is just bigoted hypocrisy. However there is also a side to this argument that has a little more merit. Some arrivals have come from cultures with a very different attitude towards women and it can be difficult for men from these cultures to put their existing prejudices aside. Additionally, many refugees have endured considerable trauma fleeing their country or in the time spent in refugee camps. This can make some of them unpredictable and prone to violence. I don’t dispute these concerns and have encountered a reasonable amount of anecdotal evidence supporting them. However refugees and immigrants from other cultures don’t have the monopoly on violent behaviour or being disrespectful towards women. Plenty of Australians can be just as dangerous, so let’s not pretend we are keeping society safe by keeping refugees out. Still, this does put an additional financial cost of increasing refugee intake, in the form of additional mental health support and community policing programs. Aside from that, my best recommendation for how to address these types of problems would be stronger sentencing powers of judges dealing with any violent offenders, but that is definitely another issue.
Ethnic enclaves
Another complaint of those against increased immigration is the tendency of ethnic groups to set up their own enclaves, which white Australians find exclusive and threatening. There is a certain irony here, as a lot of the reason these enclaves exist is because immigrants seek each other out for support as they find Australian society confusing and threatening. The best way to break these barriers down is for everyone to take responsibility for being open and accepting of other cultures, not telling people they are being Australian wrong. Still, that is not going to happen overnight and I recognise that once established, these enclaves do cause a certain amount of discomfort in the community. In reality, it is something of a first world problem though. A vast majority of the refugees and immigrants from other cultures I have dealt with have been really good people but if you are uncomfortable around groups of them, that discomfort is a small price to bear as a nation, for fulfilling our humanitarian obligations.
Employment
I am sensitive that unemployment is a concern for people in the uncertain national economy, but this is pretty poor reason to be against increased refugee intake. It is pretty simple really. If you are afraid you will lose your job to someone who is going to work harder than you, then work harder or upgrade your qualifications. You already have the advantage of being a native English speaker and not looking middle-eastern. I’m not being racist here- quite the opposite- just pointing out that I have no doubt refugees and immigrants will face discrimination in the workforce. Increased refugee intakes actually create increased employment to cater to them. Obviously this is still at commonwealth expense, but as explained above, I feel there would be some money to spare if we discontinued our use of offshore processing facilities.
Summary (in case you thought the whole essay looked a bit long and want to skip to the end)
I don’t claim to have all the answers to the refugee crisis that is engulfing the world. Many Australians have a number of concerns about the protection of our borders and our refugee intake. A lot of these concerns are a little exaggerated by our hyperbolic media and political figures, but some of the concerns are still valid and will need to be considered in the formation of future public policy in this area. While I don’t have a unified answer to the whole issue, I am confident when I say that our costly program of offshore detention should be discontinued, as the justification for its existence cannot be logically defended. I also strongly believe Australia has the capacity and obligation to accept dramatically more refugees, not just in answer to the Syrian crisis, but also on a yearly basis to provide viable and safer alternatives to those who would attempt to come here by boat. Even allowing for the additional funds freed up from offshore processing, this may put an unasked for impost on the Australian taxpayer, but sometimes we have to give something up to maintain our morality and integrity.