Boat people in Australia

Asylum or death?

A tragic sinking revives a debate about boat people

See article

Readers' comments



To MD43:
You wrote “Hyperbolic language like "invasion" does nothing except inflame debate and take it further away from rational discussion …”. I would like to address this thought with some info from government web sites.

The Australian Humanitarian Program for 2010–11 is set at 13 750 places and comprises:
a)refugees from overseas – 6000 places (the figure you mention)
b)other humanitarian – 7750 places (this includes places for the offshore Special Humanitarian Program and onshore needs).

First of all, refugees should be permitted from any country around the world; this would include those from many African countries. We have to be fair, and can’t favour boat people. Then also, we should surely give preference to refugees who follow the proper process by applying to be a refugee in Australia by filling in the necessary paperwork that can be checked in their host country. I guess you would agree?

The boat people have decided to not follow proper process. In Iraq and Iran they could have done so. But no, they left their country of origin and travelled over land and sea down to Indonesia. At any country en route they could have applied to be refugees. But no, these countries are not good enough, it must be Australia. The last leg of the trip is by boat down towards Australia. In general, they are not persecuted in any of the countries en route to Australia. They could have settled anywhere. But no, it has to be Australia. They know what will happen, it has all been explained:

So here is the general plan from their perspective:
1)Arrive somewhere in Australian territory and be transferred to a detention centre. You will be treated well, free food, board and other free facilities
2)Sell a story about persecution, rape and hard times, trauma and trouble
3)It may take a year or two, but eventually because Australians are soft, they will let you go and give you permanent residence. Australians are a soft people, just be patient. Sometimes a hunger strike will help, failing that a bit of a riot in the detention centre will sway public opinion
4)Once out of the detention centre, get on the benefit (the reason why Australia is the destination)
5)Start the process to get your relatives in, legally or illegally

Given that the number of potential refugees exceeds 6000, I think the govt releases 6000 and keeps the rest to form part of the following year’s release. And so we have created a problem that can get out of control. I would guess that it can be a creep up to 100,000 per year. Consider the number of Tamils who wish to leave Sri Lanka. Consider the number of Afghans who wish to leave, then there are Iraqis and Iranians, Pakistanis. So 100,000 a year is plausible. Hence my hyperbolic language to draw attention to a problem that must be solved before it gets big.

You wrote: “I don't see asylum seekers coming to Australia to pillage our homes and rape our wives and daughters, do you?”

Research indicates that in the short term, asylum seekers do NOT commit more crime that those in society around them. But once a number of years have passed, and a country has a sizable alternate group that crime picks up. The kind of crime depends upon the type of people. Roma steal, Chinese have triads, and Italians have their protection rackets just to name a few. The old habits (encouraged by multiculturalism) come out. So the answer to your question is – initially no, later on yes.

You wrote: “Secondly they are not breaking ANY Australian law in doing so, the term "illegal immigrants" should only be used in reference to persons such as visa overstayers …”

Good point, I (reluctantly) agree with you. I say “reluctantly” as I recon the law should be changed to make it illegal, but this would contravene international agreements.

Some information on costs, lifted from newspapers:

New processing centre could cost as much as 170m.

Taxpayers will pay nearly $1 billion to process and detain boat people over the next 12 months as the surge in unauthorised arrivals continues unabated.

The current budget includes a huge $282 million investment in new and upgraded detention facilities.

And the cost of feeding, housing, and processing asylum-seekers is expected to hit $706 million over the coming financial year.

That's $152 million more than the Government expects to spend this financial year.

Works out to be about $80,000 per asylum seeker.



Hyperbolic language like "invasion" does nothing except inflame debate and take it further away from rational discussion (not that the asylum seeker debate could be much further away from rational discussion mind you). Having 6,000 civilians over the period of a year land on an obscure island that 99% of the world has not heard of for (at least in the vast, vast majority of cases) purely peaceful reasons in no way, shape or form constitutes an invasion of any sort. I don't see asylum seekers coming to Australia to pillage our homes and rape our wives and daughters, do you? Secondly they are not breaking ANY Australian law in doing so, the term "illegal immigrants" should only be used in reference to persons such as visa overstayers, who are actually breaking Australian law and are several times larger in number. If asylum seekers were actually breaking a law they would be punished with fines, imprisonment, deportation etc, in the same manner that someone who overstayed a visa would be.


To Romney:
I was surprised to see your previous comments disappear as I saw nothing in them that infringed the Economists policy. I am not sure what the process is regarding removing comments: can a single reader do this, or is there someone else in Economist who has a veto? In the past I have fallen foul of someone as well.

Regarding words and terms such as “invasion”, I was suggesting that when the whites came to Australia, that from an Aboriginal perspective it was not an invasion because there was no government, no terminology for this. But when boat people come now it is because there is a government with terminology and they determined an immigration policy and sneaking in the back door is unacceptable.

You made some good comments on clash of cultures (settlers verses Aboriginals). Such clashes are inevitable given the huge differences in value systems. And clashes lead to conflicts (it is “us” or “them”) and that leads to lots of dead people. That is the way it was. And to some extent, that is the way things have been for thousands of years.

We should have compassion in our hearts, but still insist that the proper process for immigration is followed.

To: Australian patriot:
I fully agree with your insight and comments that we must deal with ALL illegal immigrants, not just the boat people. You are quite right that Australia must get tough at airports and construction sites as well. It is no good to plug one hole and leave another hole wide open.

@ James, Thank you for a good historical summary, putting things in perspective is an excellent place to start. I recommend everyone read your letter, above.

However, I disagree with the statement “An invasion needs to be recognised as an invasion in order to be an invasion.“
Usually, a debate on the meaning of terms is counter- productive, but an agreement on terms is quite necessary for constructive debate.
The philosophical question here is, does the object need to be aware of the action of the subject, for the action to be so labelled. I would suggest that recognition of the action is not needed. However, as a contra-positive, I would suggest that volition be required.
For instance, it was a common practice of the natives to kill animals who god “put in their path for food”. They did not see killing the farm animals as stealing. Some settlers, (almost none of whom spoke any of the native languages of their new land), whose families depended for survival on these farm animals, sometimes saw the natives as thieves and poachers who were threatening the survival of their families. Furthermore, many of these settlers did not view the natives as people in the legal rights sense, and some of them killed the natives on sight, which resulted in a significant reduction of native population in the areas more suitable for white people to live.
The question of whether this was genocide as based on whether the natives were people or animals. I prefer to think of them as people, hunting on their own land, so I would call this genocide.
But the point is that there are some taboo subjects, and nothing is more feared than the truth.
I would like to point out that most of us do not think we are racist, and feel pain when someone points out some uncomfortable truth, but in truth most of us feel more affection for those in a closer group, and less affection for those we see as belonging to a group that threatens our families. This is, unfortunately, when based on ethnic origin, racism, of which probably 99% of the people of the earth suffer from.
So course, some people are outright racist. While I disagree with their opinions, I respect the right of everyone to have an opinion, even if different than mine.
However, I do not feel it is appropriate for the three readers who slandered me by reporting my previous letter to the editor here.

My previous comment was labelled “Reductio ad absurdum”. For those who do not know latin, this means that I realize that what I was about to write was absurd, very silly, but would be a conclusion from the arguments presented previously by others.


At the risk of having this letter be deleted as well, and loosing my priveleges at the Economist forever, (as I have already had articles deleted when I pointed out racism in a society that some Economist readers believe to be above reproach), I would like to point out that the island people have a lot more right to be in Australia than the white people, based upon closer kinship with those who, according to current international law.

If someone comes to your house and kills everyone there, do they have the right to the land because it is empty? Or would the estate go to your closest kin?

Of course, the reason that my comments are deleted is because some cannot bear to think that they are on land that was ethnically cleansed, which is a euphemism for bathed in blood.

There, I said it, and I hope that even those who are so angry at me for saying an uncomfortable opinion will not delete this message.

And my message is this. All areas are filled with people who came there, and all people want to keep what is now “theirs”. But we should also have compassion for those who need a place to live.

I am not in a position to suggest a solution. It would be hard to ask any nation to accept 2 billion economic refugees. And the Bush solution, making the place better so no one wants to leave, can sometimes result in absolute catastrophe.

But we should have compassion in our hearts, rather than anger.


@ agent provocateur

"..import more white people that made Australia great.."

This is a country that sits at the 'a>se end of the world (in Paul Keating's words)whose contribution to the rest world is being a quarry and a stooge of the US (to the point of acting against its own citizens).

Great? Sure. Don't come the raw prawn mate.


Changezi wrote "As for the so-called invasion, I want to ask a question. Who are the real natives of Australia? the White Europeans?" I have no less than five generations of dead forefathers buried in graveyards around the Sydney metropolitan area. Each generation contributed to help build this country into what it is now. I consider that Australia is as much rightfully my patrimony as any aboriginal possibly could - and I resent any insinuation that my presence here is illegetimate. Now what about you?

australian patriot

I went to a popular Sydney pub for christmas drinks.
I sat next to a bunch of Irish construction workers.
It was not hard to understand what there intentions are.
Two had no work visa and the rest intended to remain in Australia forever because the Irish economy is "SHIIIGT".
These guys arrived in Australia on tourist visas and had no intention of returning home. Illegal refugees escaping economic hardship at home.
This is a clear double standard to me.
I did a little research.
Unlawful boat arrivals make up less than 5% of illegal visa abuse.
That means most people who land here have a visa without any intention of leaving.
My point is that we need to bring this whole debate back into reallity.
If you do not like illegal immigrants start at the airports and construction sites. I did not even attempt to find illegal immigrants all I did was go to the pub. It is not hard Australia.
Grow up and accept that we need to help people in need, we can afford it.

Dion Ramasami

Neither the Iraqi, Afganistan government, nor the countries that comprise the coalition forces in Iraq have taken responsibility for the well being of these refugees. While the former Bush and now the Obama Administration, the UK and Australia are busy trying to win the war, they have provided no leadership toward ensuring the rights and well being of the victims of this war. The Western World, which for the most part warned of the dire humanitarian consequences of the war, has also done nothing to help the people they were so concerned about.

Most of the burden of the refugee crisis is shouldered by the surrounding developing countries like Jordan and Syria.
In the context of refugees, there are currently two major injustices: the injustice suffered by the refugees themselves, and the injustice suffered by the developing countries, which expected to host them.

Developed countries should honour the principle of sharing the burden of the global refugee population with developing countries. It is unrealistic to expect a country such as Jordan to cope with an influx of Iraqi refugees numbering 10% of its own population.

Countries like the US, Australia and the UK need to do a lot more for refugees because they are partly responsible fo this crisis.

The treatment of refugees by the Ausralian Government is disgusting, shameful and illegal and they should be held accountable for contributing to this atrocity.

In today’s shrinking world, our very survival is dependant on our recognition of our common humanity. As history has shown us time and again, today’s host may be tomorrow’s refugee. There is only one lesson to be taken from this- we ought to treat refugees as we ourselves would wanted to be treated.


When your home is on fire, you are put in a situation refered to as 'between devil and deep sea'. You can choose either to stay and be burned or seek refuge to others' homes. This is the situation of the Afghans, Iraqis etc who risk not only their own lives but also of their women and children by migrating to Australia through wide-open waters. This phenomenan is quite enough to cast a doubt on the efficiency of the UNHCR. Why these refugees do not contact the UNHCR for seeking asylum in Australia? Perhaps, the UN wing fails to deliver and the refugees go for the dangerous route to Australia.

As for the so-called invasion, i want to ask a question. Who are the real natives of Australia? the White Europeans? Of course not. They themselves had once been exported from Europe. So, it makes little sense on the part of a white Australian to say that the Afghan or Iraqi asylum seekers should be drowned in order to prevent further refugee invasion. Indeed, it is meanest thing to say.


To Romney and Sydney: If I understand you correctly, then you are saying that the Europeans coming to Australia from 1788 onwards was a backdoor invasion. And therefore the Europeans should leave as well?

An invasion needs to be recognised as an invasion in order to be an invasion. The Aborigines did not recognise the coming of the Europeans as invaders, the Europeans were perceived as other people on the land when they came into contact with them. By 1788, the Aboriginal population existed as 250 individual nations, many of which were in alliance with one another, and within each nation there existed several clans, from as few as five or six to as many as 30 or 40. Each nation had its own language and a few had multiple, thus over 250 languages existed, around 200 of which are now extinct. Having no reading, writing or technology there was no concept of “a country”, or a “nation”. They did not know that Australia was a very large Island. Thus the word “invasion” had no meaning at that time in their language. And thus the coming of the Europeans was not a “backdoor invasion”.

Put a bit differently, an invasion is an invasion when it is perceived by the occupants as one. It presupposes that the occupants have the governmental structures to determine who can come and who can’t. There was no such structure.

Although many convicts were sent, for example, the British colony of New South Wales was established with the arrival of the First Fleet of 11 vessels under the command of Captain Arthur Phillip in January 1788. The First Fleet consisted of over a thousand settlers, including 778 convicts. But due to later gold rushes, many non-convicts immigrated to Australia.


Real refugees arriving in boats aren't a back door invasion. Greedy and immoral people smugglers bringing economic refugees are a back door invasion. The people who crashed into Christmas Island paid people smugglers to bring them from Indonesia. If they were real refugees, they should have gone to the UNHCR processing centre in Indonesia, & not kept on shopping around for the wealthiest country in the neighbourhood. Australia should determine who comes here and on what terms. James 1234 is right - the only way to stop unauthorised economic refugees is to toughen up. If we don't, then the dripping tap will start to become a steady flow.

Sydney Guy

Backdoor invasions are totally unacceptable? Do you celebrate Australia Day on 26 January, or Invasion Day?


Being soft on invaders encourages more invaders. The reason why Australia is the destination is because Australia is perceived as soft and because the benefit (dole) in Australia is good. If the benefits in the Philippines were good, then the Philippines would have been the destination. If the benefits in Indonesia were good, then Indonesia would have been the destination.

This issue will be an ongoing issue, like a dripping tap until Australia gets tough, and the people smugglers change their attitude and Australia is no longer perceived as soft with great benefits.

The sinking of the boat at Christmas Island and subsequent deaths is a blessing in disguise. It will serve as an excellent deterrent to future invaders.

So here is what Australia must do:

1) Stop keeping the people and stop processing them.

2) There must be no processing centre. Drop all ideas of processing centers. They are unnecessary and a waste of money.

3) When the next boat arrives, (and there will be many many more given the soft Gillard position) then find out where the boat left from and tow it back to the port it left from and hand over the people on the boat to the government for prosecution and prison. The boat should be sunk to stop future adventures.

And as new boats arrive near Australia, keep towing them back. Lots of new boats are coming, so they will be pretty busy.

Eventually the message will hopefully sink in: there are processes to be followed if one wants to immigrate to Australia. Back-door invasions are totally unacceptable.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40


Products and events



