Stopping the Boats for Economic Reasons?

| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

( September 07, 2012, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) As per email communications from Tamil Diaspora, there is resentment over the claim by the Hon. Julie Bishop strongly supported by the Hon. Tony Abbott that Sri Lankan Asylum seekers coming by boat were Economic Refugees.

As per my experience, Mainstream Australians holding high official positions, have great difficulty assessing and identifying with migrants of Sri Lankan origin. They had great difficulty assessing me – despite my high performance as financial controller in Public organizations, here in Australia. To that extent I discount their assessment of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka – for better or for worse - when they rush to facilitate refuge as well as when they try to block the process.

Under the circumstances, one needs to expect such Australians to do what they think would be beneficial to themselves. Under ‘normal’ times, they would tend to identify themselves with ‘Common Australians’. During election time, their group would be - Australians who would easily identify with them through their promises. In other words they would identify with Australians through their desires. Given that majority Australian voters would go with the side that promises to chase away their economic rivals, it is understandable that Mr. Abbott and Ms Bishop would try to ‘chase away’ those who seem to be against Asylum seekers who seem ‘poor’ and are more likely to be employees rather than employers. Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa takes similar ‘attitude’ against poorer-looking Tamils – by using LTTE.

It is reported that the Hon Julie Bishop had said "If the Government grants people from Sri Lanka refugee status, the Australian Government is accusing Sri Lanka of persecuting their own citizens"

It is my understanding that as per the UN ‘A refugee is a person who is outside their country of origin or habitual residence because they have suffered persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted 'social group'. Such a person may be referred to as an 'asylum seeker' until recognized by the state where he or she makes his or her claim’

Given that Tamils of Sri Lanka have been accepted by Australia as ‘refugees’, one needs to conclude that they were considered to have been persecuted in their own country. Likewise Sinhalese persecuted by Tamils due to their race, religion etc. ‘Suffering’ is suffering – irrespective of whether we could ‘prove’ that to others or not. I could not have ‘prove to Australian judiciary that I suffered due to racial discrimination at the University of New South Wales. ‘Racial Discrimination’ itself would be ‘understood’ differently at various levels. As per my experience, I concluded that to the Australian Judiciary ‘Racial Discrimination’ was largely measured at the ‘direct’ level – where one was expressly ‘told’ that one was being punished / attacked because of one’s race. To my mind, this confirms that our investment in eliminating racial discrimination is at its elementary stage. Likewise, acceptance of asylum-seekers as those covered by global conventions.

In turn, from the point of view of the host country – in this instance ‘Australia’ – to the extent asylum seekers ‘cheated’, the host country has every right to seek remedial action as well as disciplinary action. In terms of Refugees from Sri Lanka for example – to the extent a refugee is currently critical of the Government of Sri Lanka and/or the Tamil Tigers, of war-crimes and its key members as being war-criminals/terrorists – the refugee needs to be taken as continuing to suffer from the fears that pushed him/her to claim refugee status in Australia. Such refugee migrants, if they return freely to Sri Lanka, even on visits, confirm that they cheated in the first instance. When future refugees are accepted on the condition that they would not return to Sri Lanka as long as they consider the risks they ran away from, to continue to exist – that would naturally deter future applicants who are not genuine. Towards this there is provision in the UN Convention

As per Article 2 of the UN Refugee Convention 1951:

‘Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order’

It is on record that Australia proposed the following:

‘Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself which require in particular to conform to its laws and regulations and to measures taken for the maintenance of public order and that he observe the conditions upon which his entry into the country was permitted.

The Australian representative explained that his amendment purported to cover the obligation undertaken by refugees entering Australia under the Displaced Persons Resettlement Scheme to remain in the employment found for them for a period of up to two years and not to change that employment during that period without the consent of the Department of Immigration.’

If the Department of Immigration is able to monitor the ‘genuineness’ of refugees, the cheats would find it more difficult to fulfill their unjust desires. Such steps need to be taken by Politicians who suspect all refugee applicants from a particular country. Such indiscriminate suspicion damages in common - the positive value by all migrants from that country. We have all suffered in our own ways due to the war in Sri Lanka. The way each one of us has take the experiences would differ as per our own investments. Hence any measures proposed to ‘clean up’ the system needs to be carried out in an orderly manner to suit our particular need – as was done in 1951.

To the extent Australia is part of the UN Convention for the high status – it has earned the karma of economic refugees. In addition, if one is not able to earn a living due to war conditions and threats – economic reason is a very valid reason to flee the country. Some colonial regimes did primarily seek trade/business benefits from the countries they colonized. What was good for them is good for economic refugees too.