ESSAY: OF REFUGEES, ASYLUM SEEKERS, AUSTRALIA AND MALAYSIA

1st September, 2011 JIM REIHER “Open your mouth for the voiceless, for the rights of the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy” (Proverbs 31:8,9). Australians are proving to be a difficult people to please on the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. The reality is that the majority of Australians really don’t know what they want done with refugees. Every suggestion has problems and most Christians are no better informed or clear in their thinking than anyone else. Often popular media images, and political alliances determine our thinking on issues like this. Sadly the compassion of Christ for the hurting person seems to be a lesser concern. CONFUSED? Jim  Reiher says Australians don't seem  to know what they want when it comes to handling refugees. PICTURE: © Guenter Guni (www.istockphoto.com) "The parable of the sheep and the goats reminds us to care for the suffering and the hurting of the world. To do that is to do it for Jesus Himself. To not do so, is to ignore Jesus Himself. If we can’t see refugees and asylum seekers fitting into the parable of the sheep and the goats, then we are wearing blinkers." Consider our confusion over the issue: • We don’t want boat arrivals even though they are only a tiny percentage of all applications we get for refugee status in Australia; • We don’t want people to drown at sea but we don’t want to help them either; • We just want the boats to stop coming, but we have no idea of how to see that eventuate; • We don’t mind refugees, including children, being placed behind razor wire on some island in the Pacific, but we don’t want to send refugees to Malaysia where they might suffer indiscriminate abuse; • We want to be “tough” on refugees, but we don’t want to be “cruel” – however that looks (which we can’t really work out); • We are happy (it seems) to be a part of wars, and even help to start wars, in our region (including Afghanistan) but we don’t accept any responsibility for displaced persons as a result of those wars; • We seem to want someone else to house refugees and have them indefinitely, even though we are the richest and largest nation in the region with the most space and the least population density; • We don’t want to “mess up our pretty nation” with a major refugee holding camp of some sort, even in a remote location. We want poor small neighbours to do that instead; and, • We want to pretend that the world is not the mess it is, and we can stay exactly as we are without any of the wars or troubles in our region affecting us. I think we are delusional, confused and have no idea what we really want. The parable of the sheep and the goats reminds us to care for the suffering and the hurting of the world. To do that is to do it for Jesus Himself. To not do so, is to ignore Jesus Himself. If we can’t see refugees and asylum seekers fitting into the parable of the sheep and the goats, then we are wearing blinkers. The statistics and realities of the issue Christians are supposed to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves. But sadly many of us fall for the nonsense that circulates in the popular media when it comes to issues like refugees and asylum seekers. Some Christians are about as smart as doves and as innocent as serpents, on this issue! For example, did you know that 93 to 95 per cent of all applications that come to Australia for refugee status, have come from people who arrive here on aeroplanes? And about five to seven per cent of applications come from people who arrive by boats. Think about that...think about the amount of television news that we get covering ‘boat arrivals’ compared to how much time is dedicated to discussion about people who arrive at our international airports, and come off planes. And the 93 to 95 per cent of applicants who come on planes, are allowed to live in the broader community until their applications are decided. On the other hand, the people who arrive by boat, are locked up behind razor wire, until their applications are decided. Also: Of all the boat arrivals, we end up accepting about 95 per cent of them as genuine refugees. Of all the plane arrivals, we send back about 55 per cent! So we lock up the real refugees, and we allow an awful lot who are not real refugees, to live in our midst! Did you know that we bring into Australia about 180,000 new arrivals a year? Every year. Most of that number are official immigrants, but 13,000 are refugees. Soon it will be 14,000 of that number being refugees when we start taking 1,000 a year more from Malaysia. Finally: the United Nations recommends that a country of the wealth and prosperity of a place like Australia, should take about 0.1 per cent of its population as refugees every year. If we did that we would take 0.1 per cent of 22 million. That is 22,000. We take 13,000. What is the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker? A refugee is a person fleeing from something that threatens them. It may be persecution due to ethnicity or religion. It may be famine or war. The UN has stated that anyone can be a refugee and it is never about how rich or poor they are, how much they have or don’t have, what age or religion or gender they are. Australia agrees with this, and we can be proud that we are a signatory to the UN charter on refugees. An asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country like Australia and has asked to be seen as a refugee. They are in the ‘pre-refugee’ state, in an Australian legal sense. Technically, they are refugees by definition of the UN. But legally they are not ‘quite’ refugees as far as Australia is concerned. We need to check their claims and make a ruling on whether or not they really are fleeing some terrible situation, or just trying to get into Australia when they don’t ‘need’ to. There will be health and security checks to be made first. "You can not be an illegal refugee. It is nonsense to call such people ‘illegal immigrants’. Using the terms together (illegal immigrants for refugees) is logically flawed. A person is either an immigrant or a refugee (or asylum seeker)." You can not be an illegal refugee. It is nonsense to call such people ‘illegal immigrants’. Using the terms together (illegal immigrants for refugees) is logically flawed. A person is either an immigrant or a refugee (or asylum seeker). Why some asylum seekers come on boats. Depending on the country they come from, there may or may not be a process in place to help them seek to be accepted in a country like Australia. Generally, the more chaotic and war torn a country is, the less chance there is that there is an orderly process to assist a desperate person wanting to get out. This is important to remember: the more chaotic the place, the less likely the fleeing family will be able to ‘get the right paperwork’ organised; the less likely they can stand in an orderly queue and request documents to leave the country. If people arrive as boat arrivals without paperwork, risking the very dangerous journey over the seas, they are very likely to be genuine refugees. If a person comes to Australia with all their paperwork in order, and arrive on a place with visa and passport, then it is possible that they are not fleeing quite as dangerous or chaotic a situation as the boat person. Of course there will be exceptions to that, but the statistics demonstrate the general truth of it. What truth is there in the term ‘queue jumper’? In many parts of the world there are no orderly queues to join. You can’t be a queue jumper if there is no queue for you to join. Perhaps the term can be applied to the UN camps where people await placement in sympathetic countries. If a person bypasses the UN camp, and comes by boat to Australia, to end up at somewhere like Christmas Island while awaiting processing - are they ‘queue jumping’ over other refugees who have ended up in refugee camps? Not really: they have decided not to get on a UN detention list, but go instead to an Australian camp and be on the Australian detention list. They have chosen one queue over another queue. And Australia has two accepted pathways for people to come here on as refugees: either from UN camps or from our own camps. The 13,000 refugee figure, is broken into two groups: about 7,000 of them go to the special humanitarian program and onshore protection network (including both plane and boat arrivals), while 6,000 of the number come from UNHCR applications through refugee camps around the world. That will be 7,000 soon, once we start taking 1,000 extra a year from refugee camps in Malaysia. Note that: there are two separate quotas within our humanitarian intake: one quota from the first queue, and another quota for the second queue. If a person sees a long queue, and moves to a shorter queue, this is not ‘queue jumping’. It is queue swapping. Is Australia being flooded by boat people? In the last 34 years (from 1st January, 1976, to 20th September, 2010) we have had a total of 23,380 people come by boat to Australia seeking asylum. That’s an overall average of 746 asylum seekers a year. At this rate it would take 134 years to fill the MCG just once with boat arrivals! Some years see more boat arrivals than other years of course. There is a myth that circulates that they are worse that ever right now. The current numbers are huge (supposedly). In fact the highest actual year on record to date was 2001 with more than 5,500 boat arrivals. Last year (2010) saw about 4,000. This year is a lot less (even though most Australians surveyed think it is growing at the moment!) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you A survey was taken of 1,000 Australians. It was commissioned by the Red Cross and released for Refugee Week 2010. It indicates that most Australians, when asked questions with a different emphasis and in a different way - are actually sympathetic towards the plight of refugees: • 86 per cent of people would flee to a safe country, if they lived in a conflict zone and were under threat. • 94 per cent of these people would use all their money and assets to get to a safe country. • 31 per cent know of someone who has come to Australia escaping persecution or conflict in another country. • 83 per cent agree that people fleeing persecution should be able to seek protection in another country. • 83 per cent are willing to assist a refugee in their community settle in Australia. • 67 per cent agree that refugees have made a positive contribution to Australian society.   PART TWO: ESSAY: OF REFUGEES, ASYLUM SEEKERS, AUSTRALIA AND MALAYSIA 6th September, 2011 JIM REIHER The so-called 'Malaysian solution' In May 2011, the Australian Government announced the Malaysian solution as their key response to the “boat people problem”. Australia plans to send 800 boat arrivals (asylum seekers) to Malaysia, and in return we will take 4,000 processed refugees from the 100,000 waiting in Malaysia. Any boat arrivals after the date announced, would be in the group to be sent to Malaysia. Good things about the Malaysia solution: • It does take 4,000 refugees from the refugee camps there. These folk might have been waiting years for placement somewhere; "Christians, of all people, need to get past slogans and political alliances, and see real hurting human beings here." • It is taking 4,000 processed and recognised refugees - security and health checks have been done, their claims about being real refugees agreed to officially, we are giving them a new home and a new life; and, • It might be a stepping stone for Malaysia to actually begin treating their refugees and asylum seekers with more humanity. As the spotlight of the world looks a bit more closely at how they treat refugees, it could help them to change the way they do things there. It might be a step toward getting Malaysia to actually sign the UN refugee convention and the UN Convention Against Torture. Problems with the Malaysia solution: • Malaysia is not currently a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention or the UN Convention Against Torture, and we know that asylum seekers in that nation have been, and continue to be, abused. Despite assurances from the Malaysians, there is no legal framework protecting the people we send there; • Malaysian law does not distinguish between illegal immigrant workers and asylum seekers. Even recognised refugees who are suppose to be issued with a refugee card for their protection are, at times, arrested and abused; • Refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia do not have access to education for their children, health care, or employment. They end up working illegally and therefore risk arrest, beatings, and deportation; • The agreement undermines the right to seek asylum in Australia. Under international law, all asylum seekers who come to Australia regardless of their mode of transport here, must have their claims for protection assessed, and, if found to be genuine, they must be offered protection; • Unaccompanied children are to be included in this questionable arrangement; and, • If the goal of this plan is to reduce boat arrivals (and deter people from making the dangerous journey) then it might backfire in a number of ways. If the Malaysians do improve and show compassion and help for the people we send there, some might be willing to accept that outcome and still come to Australia by boat. But if the Malaysians don’t change, while it might deter some boat arrivals, it seems that many of the desperate families coming by boat will still try to find a better life despite the risk of being sent to Malaysia.  And this all presupposes that we should ‘stop the boats’ – which is an assumption that Christians need to seriously question. Why do we want to avoid helping desperate people fleeing war or persecution? Perhaps we want to stop people taking the dangerous journey that ends in death at sea for some. That is not such a bad thing, surely. But it is also possible that we are being swept along in an anti-refugee sentiment and a “fear” or being swamped by outsiders who will “change our culture”. Such fears are unfounded and irrational, especially considering the small numbers we actually receive. The decision to send boat arrivals to Malaysia was delayed by a court challenge, and over 300 boat arrivals were in limbo, waiting for the outcome of a High Court Challenge against the policy. Refugee advocacy groups believe the Malaysian plan is illegal and immoral. The High Court made its ruling on 31st August. They blocked the Malaysian deal. As The Age newspaper reported that afternoon: “The High Court has upheld the injunctions preventing the Federal Government from processing asylum seekers in Malaysia. Chief Justice Robert French said the court ordered Immigration Minister Chris Bowen and his department be restrained from sending asylum seekers to Malaysia. 'The declaration made...was made without power and is invalid,' Justice French said.” The politics and realities of the new situation This decision by the High Court leaves the Labor government in the embarrassing situation of having to scramble for another solution. In many ways the Labor Party are their own worst enemy on this issue. The Liberals have consistently been very tough on asylum seekers (and it seemed to win the Liberals lots of popular support at election time) and so Labor jumped on the same bandwagon ever since the Tampa incident in 2001. The trouble for Labor is that in their efforts to look “tough on refugees” they are now seen as not just tough, but also mean. They are not just being "strong” – they are seen as being willing to send refugees to a place that abuses people. While the Liberals seemed willing to let asylum seekers drown at sea ("we will turn the boats back"), that was never really teased out by a conservative popular media. The Liberals have surfaced in this debate as the more compassionate party, when in reality neither party has any real compassion for refugees. Both use desperate people as a way to win political points. Labor seemed intent on taking the mantle of toughness from the Liberal party. And they have been successful. But in doing so, it seems to be backfiring on Labor, and now people are seemingly changing: they want tough, but they don’t seem to want cruel. And the Malaysian solution seems too cruel. Final words Christians, of all people, need to get past slogans and political alliances, and see real hurting human beings here. We should not join in the game of using such people as political pawns to improve the chances of one side of politics or the other. We should be standing up for the powerless and the voiceless. As Proverbs 31: 8,9 says: “Open your mouth for the voiceless, for the rights of the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”

Your Say

Comment left by J Cameron Solutions to the refugee controversy ought to be simple, but the varied factions that seek placation regarding their opposing views adds complexity that, now politicized, has taken things out of the realm of logic and in to the disorder of human emotion. Clearly, the message of Christ in the Christian sphere is used, and sometimes abused, when seeking an appropriate "christian" response to what has unfortunately become, a dilemma. Logic, as I understand it, would come to an appreciation that refugees are, to state the obvious, seeking refuge from an upheaval of some sort in a given country, that causes it's people to flee. This may take the form of civil war, international conflict, political, social or religious unrest or persecution, famine, poverty, et cetera. The term Refugees has of it self become an emotive term. The "Refugees" are inadvertently grouped in to a nebulous non-entity that dehumanizes and depersonalizes them as individuals, but they are, after all, individuals. The word "refugees" also evokes immediate reaction; deep aversion in some, immediate compassion in others. But as such their cases must be approached individual by individual, and by nation of origin, cultural origin, and the specific reason or event that has caused the flight of the individual. This is because, the solution for each individual, must be specific. One cannot form a sweeping, one size fits all, policy for a nebulous non-entity with the epithet of "refugee": the response must be case by case, with a specific diagnosis and specific remedy. There is a reason for this. Government, in general, has responsibility for it's own people, as well as those that come knocking on the door from outside. The duty of care between the two must be considerately balanced so that the welfare of each is not neglected. It is well for those that are inclined to immediate aversion say, '...we should send all the "refugees" back to where they came from...', but have they considered, beyond the danger that the individual may face if returned to their place of origin, the potential good that that individual may bring, their ability to add value to our own society, while also blessing them mutually with protection and safety? To this end I would advocate that those individual asylum seekers that are deemed to be of good character, and importantly, are thankful to the country that has graciously given them refuge, be thoroughly educated in the principles that have prospered and built this culture (I do not mean post-modern principles, which are no foundation upon which to build a prosperous country). Not to supplant their own cultural identity,but to enable their integration and effective participation in the national life of their new home. (Part One) To Be Continued...

Comment left by Jim Reiher Thanks for your thoughts J. Cameron. I have ideas for a way forward in the asylum seeker, boat people, "problem". Here is my 12 point plan: 1) Australia should take the recommendation of the UN: 0.1% of the population of the country, as the figure for how many refugees we should absorb each year. That would be 22,000 annually. 2) That would be increasing our intake by 8,000 - 9,000. Currently we take 13,000 – 14,000 a year. If people are worried about ‘too much immigration’ or ‘too many total arrivals a year’ we could lower the actual immigration number by 10,000 (or 20,000) so as to be able to increase our refugee intake by that extra 8,000 - 9,000. Our annual immigration number is currently about 170,000. 3) We should access all who seek refugee status without discrimination as to how they got here (boat verses plane). 4) We should close down offshore detention centres: to keep the tiny percent of arrivals in jails like that while the great majority (plane arrivals asking to be refugees) live in the broader community, is just insanity. It becomes immoral when children are included in the number locked up. 5) We should house asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa, in publicly owned and managed open reception centres. Entry and exit to these centres should be unrestricted except where prohibited for medical or security reasons 6) Seek to assess refugee applications within 3 months (like most modern countries do). 7) If we focused on our region, that increase we take, would help clear the backlog of people waiting on the UN list in Indonesia, and would immediately stop the boats. People would not need to risk the dangerous boat journey to wait up to a year in places like Christmas Island if they only had to wait up to a year in Indonesia. The boat trips will continue while the refugees wait in Indonesia for 10-20 years to be placed somewhere. 8) Indeed if we took 0.1% of our total population each year, we would then have the moral right to encourage other western countries to do the same. At the same time: work on the bigger picture: 9) Promote peace and stability in our region of the world. Do not support actions that begin wars and cause people movements – wars lead to refugees. Peace, stability and a degree of prosperity, keeps people settled. 10) Encourage the Indonesian and Malaysian governments to sign the UN convention on refugees. 11) Financially invest in (with the condition that we can then monitor the conditions of) the holding areas for refugees in Indonesia. 12) In the meantime, since most of our current refugee flow is coming from Afghanistan and that region, why not negotiate with Pakistan (via the UN) to have a proper processing camp set up there? It would save people dangerous travel and even greater dislocation. If such a place could be set up there, and run efficiently to place people in a relatively short period of time, it would stem the flows leaving that region in dangerous and uncertain ways.

Comment left by J. Cameron 2nd Draft: The term Refugees has of it self become an emotive term. The "Refugees" are inadvertently grouped in to a nebulous non-entity that dehumanizes and depersonalizes them as individuals, but they are, after all, individual people. The word "refugees" evokes immediate emotional reaction in many; aversion in some, deep compassion in others. I am confident, however, that the reasonable human response to the refugee question must be compassion, and that the complexities of the refugee question also necessitate tempering this heart-felt compassion with wisdom that acknowledges the reality of all the facets and varying circumstances that accompany the arrival of each asylum seeker. This includes acknowledging the policy mistakes of the past that have given rise to our present situation, and a plan of action to improve upon the practices of the past, for the sake of the lives of the refugees, that will see them through all aspects of their re-settlement and ensure they are securely established in their new country, able to participate effectively as Australian citizens and able to adjust to and partake of a new and healthy community life. To this end our response in accepting people who are seeking refuge in Australia must contain specific diagnosis and specific remedies that are unique to the circumstances of each new arrival. As such each case must be approached group by group, individual by individual, and by nation of origin, cultural origin, age where needed, and the specific reason or event that has caused the flight of the individual. It is necessary to consider these factors in detail when deciding who shall be granted asylum because good government, in general, has a duel responsibility for it's own people, as well as for those that come knocking on the door from outside seeking safety within our borders. The duty of care between the two must be considerately balanced so that the welfare of each is not neglected (I will expand on this aspect later). It is well for those that are inclined to immediate aversion to the idea of taking in refugees generally to say, '...we should send all the "refugees" back to where they came from...', but have they considered, beyond the danger that the individual may face if returned to their place of origin, the potential good that individual may bring, and their ability to add value to our own society, while we bless them mutually with protection, safety, education and opportunity? Current general policy in the secular world regarding the refugee question, as exercised by the different national governments, including Australia, is inadequate. The same is also the case regarding the general "christian" approach to this dilemma, which, much like the approach of the Australian government, does not seem to extend beyond the task of desiring to take the less fortunate in, give them food and housing quickly, provide some counseling and perhaps attempt to lead them to Christ, while otherwise appearing to have no long term graduated program to assist those given asylum with the process of integration in to the broader Australian community. Yet I argue that this is the most crucial aspect to ensuring a successful outcome in the re-settlement of newly arrived refugees. As things currently stand, once asylum has been granted to a refugee, the approach of government to date appears to be, in short, to get them in to the country and, essentially, dump them in a housing apartment block with a bunch of other socially isolated refugees, some of whom may be at enmity with each other, and where too often they will remain dependent upon the State for their welfare. If you disagree with me on this point I would urge you to spend several hours over a few a weeks walking the streets of the suburbs where refugees are concentrated, places such as Dandenong in Melbourne's outer south east, or the vicinity of the high rise apartment block complex's to the north east of Flemington. Unfortunately, there are too many newly arrived individuals that fall through the cracks in the system that end up disconnected and aimless in their new lives in Australia. That the Federal and to some extent State governments have allowed this situation to develop is appallingly irresponsible, and negligent, on the government's part. In effect the government has created a new uneducated social underclass of citizens ill equipped to lift themselves out of the morass of borderline poverty, here in a materially prosperous Australia. Some members of the christian community are, through their ignorance of this terrible reality, because they either can't or won't see, complicit in this cycle, as they passionately advocate allowing a greater influx of refugees, while the deficiency of policy in assisting integration persists, inadvertently exacerbating the problem. It would be of greater assistance to identify the shortcomings of the present system and rectify them first, and then allow the intake of refugees to continue in a more healthy and beneficial way than is presently the case. (I would suggest that those of us that base our views on a purely academic foundation, purely around one ideology or religious view, must venture in to these places in person to view first hand the condition of the re-settled refugees in Australia, and allow ourselves the flexibility to accommodate those other points of view that are taken from different, and equally valid vantage points on this topic. It might even be good to venture to speak with the refugees themselves, and gain the most valuable of first hand feed back, which will confirm our careful observations.) Careful education is the key and remedy to this situation. I would strongly advocate that those individual asylum seekers that are deemed to be of good character and have therefore been granted asylum, be thoroughly educated in such a way that allows them to prosper in their own newly established personal lives, and also in the principles that have prospered and built the nation, in order to enable their integration and effective participation in the national life of their new home. (I do not mean post-modern principles, which are no foundation upon which to build a prosperous country.) Therefore: * Thorough grief and or trauma counseling should be included in this package as needed (I'm sure this is currently provided). * Thorough cultural training and understanding must be emphasized in a later setting. * Thorough training in skills that enable a refugee to join the workforce and contribute to society must follow, including language, literacy and numeracy where necessary, and further tertiary or trade education where appropriate. Employability is crucial to effective integration and participation in the national life. To provide training in skills that enable a refugee to join the workforce and contribute benefits everyone, and enables the able bodied refugee to become a helper of others and a provider to their own family and community, once the individual is established, given the required time and input of the Commonwealth and State of residence. For the sake of their personal well being and healthy community life the Commonwealth has a duty of care to see that individuals that seek refuge from genuine troubles in their home country are not left indolent, uneducated, unemployable and socially isolated within the broader Australian community. The Commonwealth also has a duty of care to it's citizens to ensure that newly situated refugees do not become institutionally dependent for their welfare upon the State and the citizen taxpayer; Australian citizens must work, so too must able bodied asylum seekers, as is fitting to their aptitude, if they wish to become Australian citizens also. Moreover, indolence, lack of a thorough education, unemployment and social isolation may lead to an increased risk of maladjustment of the individual refugee, at worst, as documented, the potential for involvement in criminal activity cannot reasonably be ignored. This is a serious problem within our own lower class among the citizenry that must also be addressed, but with newly arrived refugees the government has a golden opportunity to equip these individuals, and their leaders, while they are being processed, in such a way as to lowers the risk that they will become vulnerable to that condition. The Commonwealth and the States have a duty of care to prevent such disturbance of the peace in the broader community, as where a failure of a group of refugees to integrate may, I emphasize, on occasion result in such a disturbance, where there has been poor government planning and intervention to address the needs of the individual case of the specific refugee. I believe the Church, perhaps more so than any other body, is the possessor of the best principles of good citizenship to impart to new arrivals, if it were to take up this challenge and examine the scriptures to this end. A savvy understanding of the major traps and seductions of this world that corrupt individual character must be imparted to new arrivals. In imparting this wisdom to the new arrival the Church would empower him or her to guide their own families through the jungle that is modern western living. Such instruction is essential in order to dispel the innocent naivety that makes the individual easy prey to the many corruptions that readily avail themselves to the unsuspecting person, and to help them and their families to prosper holistically, morally, socially, personally and financially within the broader community. The persons that naturally incline towards compassion must temper their passion with the sober realization that not all individuals that may classify as refugees are suitable for admission in to Australian society, and as such, when admitted heedless of this, their profound inability to assimilate and to contribute is found to be adverse to the broader community cohesion. When this occurs this is a failure of the duty of care of the Australian government towards the Australian people. Certain cultures, and sometimes single individuals, are incompatible and cannot submit to the externally imposed rule of law within their adopted country, or submit to abide by community etiquette, or willingly contribute to community life. They deliberately choose exclusion and isolation, and in a few limited cases even deliberately disrupt and defy the rule of law and the general community spirit. Such disruptive individuals would best be relocated to nations that are more able to accommodate the uncompromising cultural and social customs held by these certain individuals, since it is not acceptable that government should have to accommodate those customs and behaviours that are contrary to the principles which form the basis for the provision of the present peace and national prosperity of Australia, and that are abhorrent to community feeling, for the sake of a few that may seek to exploit the freedoms they have acquired in this country which perhaps they were denied in their own place of origin. I would also advocate an extremely pro-active federal government, far more so than has ever been the case in Australia since Federation, to initiate a significant Peace Corps/ Reconstruction Force style department on par in size, budget and activity with the Australian Regular Army that is wholly preoccupied with the task of nation building and re-building in at-risk countries world wide, taking real preventative steps, working in co-operation with their governments and perhaps the UN where possible, to circumvent the development of circumstances that might compel that country's peoples to migrate under duress. This would require a careful eye on the trends within those countries deemed to be at risk, and a subsequent full-hearted effort and major lobbying of international bodies to get them working along side the hypothetical "Peace Corps" or such like body. I would also advocate, where necessary, peace-keeping and peace-making intervention of the Armed Forces as in the style of the 1990s interventions in Rwanda, Somalia, East Timor, etc, and run by decisive Australian forces and civil administration, and not left to lethargic, vacillating UN bodies. (As such, this view is a flight of fancy that more than likely will never see fruition.)

Comment left by Mark They should stay in their countries.

Comment left by J. Cameron Mark, are you saying people should stay and that we should ignore the problems of other people in countries that are in turmoil. Ok, how is this for a scenario: A *christian* girl from Egypt has come over to Australia to study in the hope of gaining skilled migrant status and Permanent Residency. While she is in Australia two things happen, Egypt has a popular revolt, and what began as jubilant celebrations in time has evolved in to a general, though disorganized, persecution of the minority Copts and other christians, by the more extreme elements of the muslim majority. Secondly, the degree that this girl is studying to gain PR has now been removed from the Essential Skills list by the Federal Government, and at the completion of her degree she will now be required to return to Egypt, where women who don't wear the hijab are targeted in the street, and at high risk of being raped, from reports, this is no exaggeration. Should this girl be made to return home, or should we petition the government to allow her to stay, even just for temporary protection? The above comment is thoughtless and narrow minded. It disappoints me that christians can be this empty headed, where is the compassion?

Discuss this article. Name: Message: Enter your name and message to make a comment. Due to recent spam problems, all messages are moderated and may take 24 hours to appear.