On Immigration, Asylum Seekers and Things

In discussions regarding immigration and Australia’s treatment of refugees, asylum seekers, boat people, illegal arrivals, or whatever else may come within that broad parameter of things, there is one fundamental thing that must always be understood – the world, and life, is not fair.

Is it fair that people should be forced to flee their homes because of persecution, war, drought and the like? Of course not. And is it fair that such people should languish in detention centres, refugee camps etc? No. And is it fair that a rich country like people should turn people away? Of course not.

But – life is not fair.

Second thing that we should insist on. The first priority of the Australian Parliament and all our elected representatives is to protect the unity of the Australian nation. If there is a risk that uncontrolled or knee jerk policies result in the breakdown of social cohesion we run the risk of creating the type of society that others are fleeing from. Rather than solving one problem we have created another.

Fact. Many of these asylum seekers come from cultures that have values that we find abhorrent. They have different understanding of how society should be regulated. Their treatment of women, for example, is not in keeping with our values of equality. Arranged marriages, child marriages, honour killings etc. Not to mention centuries of hostility between one group and another.

Some may label our attitudes as racist. There are things that get around on Facebook and social media that are, I believe, ill-informed, especially when it comes to the amount of money these people receive after they arrive. But there is also, I believe, a legitimate fear among many about the impact that immigration from some of these countries may bring.

While our politicians may play to those fears for political advantage – and I believe there is no doubt they do – that does not mean those fears are groundless.

I am all for giving people a fresh start. And that extends to people from any country, culture or religion. But we need to do it in ways that preserves our freedoms, that allows our citizens to travel without fear to any part of the country. And the only way we can do that is manage the change carefully.

And if that means we let people suffer in refugee camps and the like – remember, life sucks.

Its not about compassion, its about reality. Refugees are more than people on boats. There are millions of Palestinian refugees in the world, many of them on the Gaza strip and West Bank. Some still have the keys to the houses their parents or grandparents were forced out of in the late 40s. Palestinian refugee kids with stones fight highly trained soldiers in tanks.

This is only a small part of the total number of displaced persons around the globe. Yes - life sucks.

People on boats get all the attention. Is compassion selective - only directed at those who can afford to pay people smugglers? A refugee camp on Mannus Island or Naru may not be paradise, but if managed properly it should give people a basic safety, nutrition and health care - which is more than a lost of other displaced persons in this world get. And they are not going to get run over by Israeli tanks of have their houses bulldozed because one of the family is suspected of being a terrorist. Not an ideal solution, but better than where they were. Done properly, it is a measure of compassion.

If there is a solution it has to be a world solution, because Australia can't be the solution.

And if unmanaged immigration means my granddaughters end up being treated as second class citizens, denined the rights to which I believe they are entitled, and cannot walk any street in this country in safety because we have been 'compassionate', then I am not inclined to be compassionate. But then, I don't equate compassion with opening our doors to anyone who rocks up in a boat, or who steps off an aeroplane, and says 'I am a refugee.'

The Aussie Bastard

One thing that intrigues me about our Australian culture is this - we can call someone a bastard and they'll turn around and buy us a beer. In most, if not the rest of the world a broken nose is probably a good outcome - many places we'd have our throat cut. Why?

While I have never been able to find anything to confirm my theory, I suspect it goes back to the First Fleet. If my memory is correct, there were 11 ships, one carried women. The women were there for one reason, and one reason only - the authorites in England believed there would be riots if there was no female company.

Unlike the Americans, whose first white settlers gave thanks to God for their new land when they first embarked, our forbears rolled out the keg and had a good old fashioned drunken orgy. The first white bastard concieved on our shores was probably conceived that night. And perhaps that's why we are so relaxed about the term. In our early days we may well have been a pack of bastards.

Now one would think that given the differences in our orgins - Australian and American - that America had the more enlightened origin and we would therefore expect that they would have developed a more enlightened society. Yet, from where I sit, I see us as having developed a more cohesive, fairer place to live and it concerns me now that we seem to be going down a different road.

If someone can correct my understanding of our history, please feel free to do so.

Is marriage equality irrational

There is something I see as irrational in the debate over so-called marriage equality. Now if I were gay, Christian, and believed that gay marriage were consistent with my faith, then seeking to have a relationship recognised as a marriage makes sense.

But what if I reject religion, and specifically the Christian version of such? What, if in that rejection I see Chrisianity as inhibiting and repressive, putting silly, stupid restrictions on human freedom?
What then is my rationale basis for a monagomous relationship? 

When I look at both the world of humans and the larger world of living things, monagomy seems a rare, unusual sort of thing. There are few animal species that mate for life. And in the human sphere, monagomy seems to be something that largely evolved in the Christian world. Polygamy was allowed, and in one place even commanded, in the Old Testament and seems to be the norm in other cultures.

So, if the only basis for monagomous marriage is Christianity, then why would those who reject Christianity clamour for the right to relationship that appears only to have any basis in that which they reject?

Iraq - a 'well-rooted country'

Iraq means 'well-rooted country'. It came into being as a result of a decision by Winston Churchill in 1921.

Arabs are not one homogeneous bunch - they hate each other with a vengeance. But the Ottomans had held their empire together for a few centuries by recognising the different groups and organising them into some form of autonomous regions.

The Ottoman Empire crumbled with the end of WW1, leaving the area to some extent under the influence of the Britts - but there was not support in England for a continuation of the Empire. Against all advice from his advisors Churchill drew lines on a map and divided the area into different countries without regard for ethnic tensions. He then handed power over to local strong-men who he believed would look after England's interests - forget democracy.

And part of that legacy is modern Iraq, a mix of Sunnis, Shites and Kurds - a 'well-rooted country'.

(History's worst decisions and the people who made them, Steven Weir, p.p. 134, 135)

There is no free education

There never has been, nor never will be, free education in this country. Whether your education has been private or public I and every other tax payer have paid for it. And if you have accrued a HECS debt at uni - your education has still been subsidised by the tax payer.

As someone who has contributed to your education I expect you to give something back to the community. That means, if you are able to, get a job. It also means if that education has given you opportunites that others haven't had and you now find yourself earning an income that may be the envy of others you recognise that not everyone has had your opportunity, or that they have made their equally, if not more, valuble contribution to the welfare of our community in ways that have not brought them the same financial reward. So don't complain if you are asked to make a contribution above what you may or may not give through your employment.

Random Stuff

If we support and endorse a predatory economic model should we then complain when it chews us up and spits us out?

What if we valued work according to what it contributed to the betterment of the community? 

The power of an idea, philosophy or belief is seen in the willingness of people to embrace and hold onto it freely without inducement, fear or force. 
 

The first role of government and our elected representatives should always be to maintain the social cohesivenss of the nation.

It should be to this purpose that they frame their policies and their debates.

To the extent that they fail on this point they fail the people and on this point they should be judged first and foremost.

Frustration

One thing I have learned from Karate is this. Frustration, if understood and managed the right way, is good.

When I try to learn something new after a while I get frustrated with my efforts. Frustration tells me that my brain now knows that I could be doing it better but my abiity does not match my ideal. It is a natural part of learning, necessary if I am to improve.

And right now I find this world and this country frustrating. Ideals, like perfect karate technique are something to be pursued, but will always remain unattainable. But to stop trying is to accept mediocracy.