The economics of asylum

David Gilet, Byron Bay

It should be obvious to everyone by now that until there is some stability and opportunity in countries in crisis that asylum seekers will continue to pour out of afflicted areas no matter which party is in power.

Both major parties cry crocodile tears over people drowning at sea and present their policies as moved by compassion when it is obvious that both are motivated by political embarrassment.

It could turn out to be an extreme irony that allied forces will withdraw from Afghanistan while Mr Rabid is in power. Now nobody in their right mind believes that Afghanistan will not revert to warlordism of some variety after withdrawal. Already many former warlords have been ‘democratically’ elected to positions of power in government and of course some groups in Afghanistan will regard the withdrawal as a declaration of open season on the Hazara people. The refugee problem will probably be more extreme under Abbott than it is now.

The other great puzzle to me in the immigration debate is why it is deemed dishonourable to be deemed an ‘economic’ migrant. Surely the urge to improve your own and your family’s material situation is an understandable and commendable goal. Nearly all people living in Australia today either came as economic migrants themselves or are descendants of economic migrants. Even the convicts could be regarded as ‘non-voluntary’ ‘economic’ migrants as most of them were sentenced to transportation for crimes against property – theft, fraud, forgery etc – due to poverty.

How will Abbott respond? If he’s too macho and hairy chested about the situation he will only further destroy Australia’s reputation abroad – even if it goes down well with the electorate – a reputation already tarnished by Labor’s virtual adoption of John Howard’s policies.