“Australia’s pitiless migrant policy”

Unfortunately behind a paywall but sent to me by my moronic former mate who now breathes the air in Silicon Valley and drives three Mercedes and a Porsche. The article is also from the Financial Times in the UK which, as we know, is a model to us all.

Australia’s pitiless migrant policy no model for the EU

Matteo Salvini, Italy’s interior minister, has provoked outrage across Europe with his refusal to let the Aquarius, a rescue ship carrying hundreds of migrants, dock in an Italian port. The Spanish government has had to step in to give the boat a safe harbour.

Mr Salvini’s move has been described as unprecedented. But for watchers of Australian politics, it is alarmingly familiar. During a tumultuous Australian election in 2001, a Norwegian freighter, the MV Tampa, rescued more than 400 distressed asylum seekers in international waters. John Howard, the then prime minister, refused the captain permission to enter Australian waters, and ordered special forces to seize the vessel when he did so anyway.

The “Tampa affair” stands out as a moment when Canberra explicitly adopted the view that Australia could no longer afford to observe humanitarian norms. Within a few months, the first elements of the Pacific solution, which involved forcing boats back to Indonesia and detaining asylum seekers in Nauru, an island nation 750 miles offshore, were in place.

There are worrying signs — beyond the eerie Aquarius-Tampa parallel — that the EU is heading down a similar path. Last year, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, floated the idea of keeping migrants away from Europe by creating “hotspots” to handle asylum requests in north Africa. The German interior ministry has also mooted the advantages of eliminating “the prospect of reaching the European coast”.

The temptations of such a policy for European politicians are clear. A steady stream of refugees to Europe has fed the rise of populist parties, including Mr Salvini’s League and Alternative for Germany. Meanwhile, Australia’s policy has largely achieved its objective: to “stop the boats”. European leaders are drawn to the humanitarian defence for this hardline approach: that stopping the boats means fewer drownings.

They should resist. Australia’s refugee policy has become notorious for its brutality. The Nauru detention centre has seen hunger strikes, suicides and hundreds of accusations of abuse. A separate centre on Manus Island last year had its water and power cut off. Amnesty International has called the policy a “human rights catastrophe”.

Few in the EU would defend the extreme brutality of Australia’s system — but in 2001 not many Australians would have either. The logic of deterrence naturally escalates: Australia introduced mandatory detention of “unlawful non-citizens” in 1992 and, ever since, has been gradually stepping up the degree of hostility needed to, in the words of several past and present immigration ministers, “take the sugar off the table”.

Escalation can happen for two reasons. The welfare of refugees receives less attention when they are processed offshore, far from the eyes of journalists or the public. When abuses are noticed, they are defended as life-saving deterrence. In 2015, then-prime minister Tony Abbott called a report highlighting abuses of children in offshore detention “a transparent stitch-up”. A few months later he said he would not “succumb to the cries of the human rights lawyers”.

The turning back of the Aquarius could have several consequences. It might reinvigorate EU efforts to share the burden of processing refugees and address Italian and Greek complaints about how much they have borne alone. It could also spur a serious attempt at a regional solution, working with North African states.

The other, darker scenario is that Europe will opt for an Australian solution, turning back boats and warehousing refugees in poorer neighbouring countries. Mr Salvini’s rhetoric is prompting outrage, but it is the plans of the EU’s more high-minded leaders that pose the real threat to the bloc’s self-image as a human rights champion.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, International. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to “Australia’s pitiless migrant policy”

  1. Hey you lot at the UK Financial Times!…….Go fvck yourselves.

  2. The Centrelink seekers on Tampa were being returned to their port of origin in Indonesia, as per custom, convention and Law of the Sea. The criminals hijacked the ship. The ring leaders should have been tried and when found guilty taken to a place of execution and hanged the neck until dead. Their corpses should then have been hung in chains at the water mark until the tide had washed over them three times. The kind of ‘international norms’ which we have forgotten.

  3. a happy little debunker

    The criminals hijacked the ship.

    They then threatened physical harm & by definition are Pirates and should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  4. a happy little debunker

    A separate centre on Manus Island last year had its water and power cut off

    After the facility had been closed and all the residents rehoused.

    The lies continue unabated.

  5. thefrollickingmole

    Possibly the single greatest response since “sod off swampy”.

    If you only watch one video today make it this 1 minute long one of pure winning

  6. H B Bear

    I love the sound of international and UN condemnation of Australia. Unfortunately we don’t hear enough of it with Waffleworth’s Lieborals in charge.

  7. Dr Fred Lenin

    Australia should be ostrichised , to ostrichise ,to bury ones head in bullshit so you can ignore the truth . Refusing to let unwanted people into the country and giving them and all their wives and hordes of kids taxpayer funded welfare ,to keep them in the manner they would like to become accustomed to,the welfare will supplement the cash jobs they do .

  8. Sydney Boy

    And somehow fails to notice the 17,000-odd refugees and humanitarian intake Australia accepts each year and immediately awards the status of Permanant Resident (without the waiting period required by say, skilled migrants) thus entitling the poor sods to the generous Australian welfare system.

  9. lotocoti

    the Aquarius, a rescue ship

    Would that be the MV Aquarius, the MSF tub which rendezvoused with people smugglers, 40nm off the African coast?

  10. manalive

    The picture at the head the FT (UK) article is from Manus Island first published in 2014.
    There are no children in detention on Manus, the detention centre was closed in 2017.
    85 of the 500 Men on Manus have been accepted by US.
    Manus Island detainees have received a total of $70m compensation.

  11. Tim Neilson

    Remember in 2001 we were an international pariah for the Tampa etc?

    While that furore was happening, my father happened to be at a dinner where he was sitting next to the London Telegraph’s head of European reporting. My father asked what people in Britain and Europe thought of Howard’s immigration policies. He was told that few of them knew about it, but the overwhelming majority of the ones who did wished Europe would do the same.

    I’m no more worried by this FT rant than by ABC/Fairfax cant-ridden hysteria.

  12. flyingduk

    Hard times breed strong men, strong men breed good times, good times breed weak men, weak men breed hard times… rinse and repeat…

  13. Marcus

    Last year, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, floated the idea of keeping migrants away from Europe by creating “hotspots” to handle asylum requests in north Africa.

    Hmm. Maybe it’s low expectations on my part (okay, no maybe about it) but Macron isn’t turning out to be as bad as I thought.

  14. Paul

    Just send them all back to their homelands.
    According to the left, these are not shitholes.
    Many are in fact left wing dictatorships, that should keep the left happy.

  15. Dr Fred Lenin

    Marcus Macron is under extreme pressure from the Frexit lovers and from the National Rally and anti immigration true French people ,the “extreme racist right “as the communist fascist racist left call us . Marine le Pen and like minded French are a force to be reckoned with ,and not to be ignored if he wants his masters of the Fourth Reich (“EU ) to let him keep his job ,and he doesn’t want to let his Mum ,sorry Wife down .

  16. Y

    “provoked outrage across Europe ”

    With everyone except voters.

  17. C.L.

    There are worrying signs — beyond the eerie Aquarius-Tampa parallel — that the EU is heading down a similar path.

    Yeah, when somebody stops hundreds of thousands of invaders and r-apists from entering your country, it’s “eerie.”
    What a cock head.
    Plus: nobody cares. People are sick and tired of their cultures and nations being wrecked by Mohammedan apes.

  18. Habib

    I’m sure old mate can sponsor a whole raft of primitive savages to move into his gaff and assuage his guilt. Otherwise he can blow me.

  19. Tombell

    Were it the good ship Venus, docking may not have been a problem.

    Seriously though, who gives a rats what these floggers think? They are beyond contempt.

  20. Jimf

    Within 3 yrs Aust style border protection policy will be running rampant in Europe. The EU wankers are toast , they have cuddled themselves to death. Bye bye .

  21. struth

    Within 3 yrs Aust style border protection policy will be running rampant in Europe

    So you mean they’ll stop the boats but get the taxpayers to pay for their flights over instead?

    Look at our immigration per our population and who we are importing and you’ll see it’s nothing short of an invasion funded by us and where the planes of the invasion are kept “under the radar”.

    We are way ahead of Europe in our self destruction when you consider our small population.

  22. Blair

    “Nauru an island nation 750 miles offshore…..”
    “Distance from Australia to Nauru is 4,494 kilometers. This air travel distance is equal to 2,792 miles.”
    “Distance Nauru → Brisbane
    Distance: 2,078.42 mi (3,344.89 km)”
    “4,191 km
    Distance from Darwin to Nauru”

  23. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    No mention either of how Australian policies have stopped many more thousands of deaths at sea after we called halt at the first thousand or so. Why not say how many lives have been saved by stopping economic migrants getting onto overcrowded leaky boats when, if they were genuine refugees, they have already been through many countries of ‘refuge’ other than the ‘first’ one? We were facing an economic invasion, and as noted above, we still permit far too many economic aspirants to arrive here by air, under refugee programs that programs that currently respond to a very changed international situation to that which they were designed to address.

  24. md

    … my moronic former mate who now breathes the air in Silicon Valley and drives three Mercedes and a Porsche.

    The New Left are motivated purely by their desire to seek out the self-gratifying psychological reward they get from rubbing their good fortune in the faces of the less-fortunate.

  25. Clint

    Why does everyone overseas pretend we have a tough migration system? It is absurdly easy to get into this country as evidenced by the amount of organised crime, terrorists, rapists and low skilled workers we have let into this country. Making a kebab and driving a cab appears to be a skills shortage in this country

  26. Clint

    Why does everyone overseas pretend we have a tough m igration system? It is absurdly easy to get into this country as evidenced by the amount of organ ised c rime, terror ists, rap ists and low skilled workers we have let into this country. Making a ke bab and driving a cab appears to be a skills shortage in this country

  27. max

    “Your papers, please!”

    The defender of liberty responds: “The free market changes America every day. Innovations undermine our way of life, moment by moment. Innovation makes our lives better.” Second, he replies: “Why do you think Congress can pass a law restricting freedom of travel and freedom of contract, and thereby preserve the good parts of our way of life? Why do you trust the federal government’s good judgment in matters social and economic? Why have you become an apologist for central planning? Why have you become an advocate of social engineering by federal politicians and bureaucrats?” Conservatives remain silent. They have never thought of this, and they don’t want to have to re-think what they say they believe in, namely, that Congress cannot safely be trusted on matters economic. They are saying that Congress can provide a Goldilocks solution: not too much social change, but not too little. The defender of liberty asks: “When has Congress ever legislated a Goldilocks solution? When has the federal bureaucracy ever enforced it as written, let alone as justified by members of the voting bloc in Congress that passed it?”

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/13246.cfm

    in peace time, Citizenship border is only border that is needed to protect.
    who should have right to be citizen and how.

  28. Tim Neilson

    max
    #2743238, posted on June 21, 2018 at 10:46 am

    Every time some shiteater comes up with this bullshit I ask the same question, and never get a straight answer.

    Imagine that there’s a non-citizen who wants to come here, who has a highly infectious disease that’s readily transmissible in an epidemic starting kind of way, is almost invariably fatal, and for which there is no known cure or prophylactic.
    Should the government have the right to refuse that person physical entry into the country?
    If so, on what principle is it so axiomatic that the government shouldn’t have the power to refuse physical entry to some other categories of people (e.g. known mass murdering psychopaths?)
    And if some exceptions to open borders lunacy do exist, who, other than government, should declare what they are?

  29. max

    “Imagine that there’s a non-citizen who wants to come here, who has a highly infectious disease that’s readily transmissible in an epidemic starting kind of way, is almost invariably fatal, and for which there is no known cure or prophylactic.”

    how is he going to come on the boat or plain?
    who is going to admit him in ?
    transferable disease is aggression against person, entry to plain or boat refused.

  30. max

    Tim Neilson
    Australian nurses working in africa with ebola — think about that

  31. Kneel

    “I love the sound of international and UN condemnation of Australia. ”

    Indeed. Perhaps the next illegal bunch should be given a one-way ticket to the EU. Say, a full 787 of illegals dumped in some euro- shit-hole. Watch them squirm then…

  32. Tim Neilson

    how is he going to come on the boat or plain?
    who is going to admit him in ?
    transferable disease is aggression against person, entry to plain or boat refused.

    Firstly, it’s no answer to the question to say that it’s unlikely to happen.
    Secondly it could happen. What if the person holds a gun to the head of an Indonesian fisherman and forces the fisherman to bring him here? Alternatively, why do you think people smugglers would care about the health of their crew?

    Tim Neilson
    Australian nurses working in africa with ebola — think about that

    Certainly!
    Australia will presumably readmit its own citizens in that circumstance. But what does that have to do with non-citizens rocking up and expecting to be allowed in?

  33. max

    your hypothetical scenario can happen today as well.

    you also assume that private protection/screening is nonexistent.

    you also assume that there is no punishment for intentional murder.

    you assume that government employees work better than private corporation employees.

  34. max

    Typhoid Mary
    She was presumed to have infected 51 people, three of whom died, over the course of her career as a cook.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon#cite_note-4

  35. Tim Neilson

    your hypothetical scenario can happen today as well.

    Yes, exactly. Sort of proves my point, doesn’t it?

    you also assume that private protection/screening is nonexistent.

    No I don’t. Perhaps I do assume that private screening won’t be 100% effective – or, as you’ve admitted, my scenarios can happen (which would make private screening an irrelevancy).

    you also assume that there is no punishment for intentional murder.

    No I don’t. You’re insisting “we’ve got to let in the plague carrier, even though that will result in 1,000’s of deaths, because we’re confident that we’ll then be able to secure a conviction for murder”. That’s not just idiotic, it also flies in the face of the rules of law that permit force to be used to prevent a crime.

    you assume that government employees work better than private corporation employees.

    No I don’t. That’s a total non-sequitur anyway. Even if I assume, say, the police to be less than 100% efficient, I still want there to be laws against violent crime.

  36. mareeS

    HardHearted Hannah here, I have no care for people who come for freebies.

    Spouse and I have worked multiple jobs at times in our careers to build ourselves and our family. Both our kids work in unusual careers outside of cities, building their own lives.

    Migrants can get on with it, and forget about Centrelink, which our family has never touched even though we pay the taxes.

  37. Michael James

    Why exactly is Italy obliged to receive a boatload of what will surely be mostly economic migrants?
    I would say that it’s obliged to provide necessary medice and food and to help them get to a safe harbour, even it’s back where they came from.
    As for the ‘outrage’ provoked in Europe, Italy’s refusal to receive the boat provoked plenty of support too, especially among Italian voters.

  38. max

    “You’re insisting “we’ve got to let in the plague carrier, even though that will result in 1,000’s of deaths, because we’re confident that we’ll then be able to secure a conviction for murder”. That’s not just idiotic, it also flies in the face of the rules of law that permit force to be used to prevent a crime.”

    I do not insist such think, I say that Government is not to be trusted with managing immigration if there is no war.

    Straw man tactics:

    A: We should relax the laws on beer.
    B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

    Your hypothetical scenario did happen and will happen again, last pandemic was Spanish flu 1918 – 1920, It infected 500 million people around the world, and resulted in the deaths of 50 to 100 million. Before that you had The Black Death couple of times.
    How technology advances travel will get cheaper and pandemic is going to happen sooner than later.
    Last year 8.5 million people visit Australia.

    “Central planning by the federal government is officially opposed by conservatives until you show them a marker that says “United States” on one side, and “Mexico” on the other. Then: “Congress needs to build a fence!”

    “Why do you think Congress can pass a law restricting freedom of travel and freedom of contract, and thereby preserve the good parts of our way of life? Why do you trust the federal government’s good judgment in matters social and economic? Why have you become an apologist for central planning? Why have you become an advocate of social engineering by federal politicians and bureaucrats?”

    Congress cannot safely be trusted on matters economic.

    Conservatives quote Ronald Reagan. “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” Conclusion: from 1788 to 1882, the United States was not a nation. Silly, isn’t it? Then why do conservatives quote it?

    This historically silly slogan assumes that passing a law is the same as achieving the law’s official goal. We have immigration laws on the statute books today. We also have 10 million illegal aliens. Maybe 20 million. Maybe 30 million. The government cannot even count them.

    But immigration restrictions from 1882 up until World War I mainly had to do with keeping Chinese out of the country. The Immigration Act of 1924 extended this to many nations.

    A sign of freedom prior to World War I was this: there were no passports anywhere in the West.

    The conservative tradition in America, 1788-1882, was open borders. So was the liberal tradition. The Constitutional tradition in America was open borders. Only in 1882 did this begin to change. It escalated in 1924.
    If you listen to the proponents of immigration restriction today, you would think the George Washington and James Madison in 1787 persuaded the Constitutional Convention to authorize congressional restrictions on immigration. You would think that this was part of the American constitutional tradition. But the U.S. Constitution has no reference to any such restrictions.

    Anytime somebody says that there have to be some sort of social criteria beyond non-criminal judicial status, in order to gain residence in the United States, he is saying that politicians in Congress, and permanent tenured bureaucrats in the executive, are competent in understanding what America needs today, and what America will need in the future. ”

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/13246.cfm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.