h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think, Ormy, that while your point about Australians and the asylum seekers has its merits, it doesn't cover the whole issue. I'll be the first to admit I don't watch the news on a regular basis, so I don't claim to be an expert either, but I do live in Australia, and it has been a topic for debate over quite some period of time over here, so I feel that I have some qualifications at least to talk on it.

Racism is a part of the reason that John Howard has so much support for taking a hard-line stance on refugees, but I think there are a whole lot of other factors which you have not covered which are important.

- How about complacency? Do you know ONE war has been fought on Australian soil since European settlement? Just one. Thankfully, we have very little contact with war, but that gives us very little insight into the sufferings caused by it. It is something that happens somewhere else, and has very little to do with us, as far as we can tell; while we see it on TV, it's hard to really take in what it means for the people there.

- Ditto hunger, oppression, many natural disasters and so on. They just don't happen here. Which is why we're so lucky, and I guess why we're so attractive to refugees.

-I think we also feel exploited. I don't know what the detention centres are like, although I've personally heard the conditions are bad in them, but I think the general feeling is that these people come over here uninvited and then complain when they're not able to live a luxurious lifestyle. NOTE: I am not saying that this is the case, or that it is MY opinion, it just seems to be the general opinion. We've got some of them on hunger strikes, including some children, who some believe may have been manipulated into it to rush through their claims. I believe that whatever else can be said for the conditions they live in that they are kept in food and water and safety from war; but I suspect that the general population feels that they live very well in there. Someone said to me recently: 'they live in better conditions than some Australians.' We have people who are already citizens who sleep on the streets. This is a shameful thing to have to admit about your country, but it's true. We have aborigines who live in shocking health conditions. There's a general feeling that the people who come here are ungrateful for what they get.

-Geographically we are a large nation, but population-wise, we are not. I've heard it said, although I don't know how true it is, that LA has more people in it than the whole of Australia. And like most industrialised countries, we suffer from an ageing population. With this burden on our Welfare scheme, which is only, as I see it, going to get bigger, just how many unskilled people can we take in? My personal worry is that we won't be able to economically support large numbers of refugees; and while that is a relatively uneducated guess, it's not hard to envision that others might wonder too. If it were only one refugee ship involved, then yes, I'd be horrified at John Howard's response too, but we've been dealing with this issue for a long time -- this is only one of many ships that has attempted to enter Australia, even in this last year. I don't know how many asylum seekers we currently have, but we're constantly hearing of more and more coming. We also hear the word 'people smugglers' a lot: that means to me that somebody out there is getting paid ludicrous amounts of money to exploit these people and bring them out here in whatever conditions they can transport them in, and from my understanding, sometimes those conditions are very bad. If those people can prove that they can get results for their clients, isn't that just going to encourage their trade? So we're seeing this as an 'avalanche' effect, not just one isolated incident.

- There is a racist component in Australian society; an intolerant component, and frankly, I'm appalled with the comment that you referred to, that people should be thrown to sharks. That's horrid. And I have nothing to say in Pauline Hanson's defence either. I personally oppose her gaining any political power in this country, and in fact there was quite a bit of political wrangling in the last election to limit her power, so I'm not alone. But she obviously touches a note with some people, to have gained the support she has.

- I guess I should end by stating my own opinion, so it doesn't become confused with what I've said above. The short answer is: I don't know what the answer is. I have serious doubts that we can support the huge numbers of refugees attempting to enter our country and do not agree with the idea of people being exploited to get them out here; but at the same time, I agree that everybody has a right to live free from hunger, war and oppression. I know that if I weren't as lucky as I am and lived in a country where I didn't receive those rights, I'd want to move somewhere I could, and bring up my children somewhere I could guarantee them a peaceful existence. I know I'd want a country to take ME in; whether or not I had the skills to benefit them.

Living in Kent I am aware of the strong anti-illegal immigrant feelings. They are probably stronger here than in any other part of Britain as this is the county that they all arrive at. I have to admit that I don't agree entirely with your article Ormondroyd, I am not racist but I have mixed feelings on immigration.

The problem as I see it is in the processing of immigrants' claims for assylum. Unfortunately I think the system favours those who are bogus. From the interviews with asylum seekers that I have seen, genuine asylum seekers are grateful to be in this country and do not moan about their accomodation or voucher schemes, they are glad to be safe and in an environment far better than the one they have left. Sadly, there are a great many asylum seekers who are making bogus claims and meanwhile complaining about their treatment. I have heard reports about some of these bogus asylum seekers even returning to their home countries for health care as ours is so bad (they travel on cheap airlines, sounds like a good idea considering the state of the NHS) and then return later making a new asylum claim.

My point is not how bad immigration is, but because of a badly flawed system, the electorate sees how bad the problem is and labels all aslyum seekers, bogus and genuine, together. The govt has to be seen to be taking postitive action so develops ridiculous vote winning strategies. Ironically, many bogus asylum seekers disappear when their claim is rejected and never leave the country. Sadly, genuine asylum seekers are successfully deported to face the horrors of the country they escaped from.

I'm not sure what the solution is but a new system needs to be devised. Bogus asylum seekers need to be discovered quickly and effectively deported so the money can be used on the genuine refugees who need it. A euro wide policy needs drwaing up so that the financial burden of refugees is spread evenly throughout the EU.

Those with a genuine need require our full help and support but we can only give it if we can sort the whole mess of a system out. Until then, unfortunately anti-immigrant feelings are just going to rise.

NB I am absolutely horrified to hear about the plans to use immigrants as cheap labour. I don't care if their claim is bogus or not, no-one should be treated like that. How can such a problem be given to a private, profit making company to solve? I'm sure they're not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.

Thank you both for your responses.

SMoB, the first thing I would emphasise is that I didn't mean to suggest that Australia is necessarily any more racist than other nations, so please don't take my comments personally! Your comments about Australia's 'complacency', due to long-term freedom from war, famine and other disasters is an interesting one, but something pretty similar could be said about most of western Europe. Perhaps the most exceptional circumstance in Australia is that you do have a lot of spare space!

And I'm sorry, but the argument about some Australians being worse off than the asylum seekers in the camps seems to me to be looking at the problem the wrong way around. We have homeless people on the streets in Britain too, but I don't think any of the beggars I see around Bradford would feel any better if they knew that people in detention camps were having a worse time than them. Shouldn't people who've just survived a long, possibly perilous journey be kept in reasonable safety and comfort? (Not luxury - comfort). Homelessness and poverty are scandalous, but they can't be used to justify the ill-treatment of immigrants.

deackie, I actually agree with most of what you have to say. A more integrated system across the EU would certainly be a good idea. Living in Bradford, I too am no stranger to racial tensions and anti-immigrant feeling. I must say, though, that I find your story about 'bogus asylum seekers' (if we must use Ann Widdecombe's catchphrase) flying 'home' for medical treatment pretty difficult to believe, since voluntarily returning to where they'd come from would obviously invalidate their claims. Where did you read or hear that?

Just imagine what these people go through. They leave their homes, their friends and their posessions behind, and pay large sums of money to criminals. (I do also agree that the 'people smugglers' are reprehensible, BTW.) The emigrants have to hope that the criminals will deliver them to somewhere reasonably suitable. They have to hope that the transport used will be safe so that they won't die en route as many have in the past, and as that boatload of people in the recent Australian case almost did. They know that even if the journey is a success, they're going to end up in a place where they're unlikely to be welcomed with open arms. In many cases, it's likely that they'll end up somewhere where they don't know anyone, don't know the culture and don't know the language.

Would you put yourself, and perhaps your family, through all that if you didn't have a very good reason?

This is going to be short because I am very unwell at the moment.

Yes, they should expect comfort; the point I was trying to make is that the general feeling is that they are. Whether or not this is true I don't know.

And yes, they obviously do have real needs. You'll note my feelings on the issue as described above.

Yes we do have a lot of space, but do we really want to stick these people in the middle of nowhere with no amenities? Actually I have a good idea that's not what you're saying, but my point is not the space but the resources to support them. And by that I mean people, not money. Consider with our population just how many refugees we get per capita. I don't know the actual economics of it; all I was trying to get across is that the general feeling here can't be just lumped under the heading of racism.

And actually I'm not taking it personally, but I can't express myself any better than that as I really don't feel well enough to go into this in more detail now. And anyway, I'm hopelessly aware of my own ignorance about too many facets of this problem.

I am horrified by the way in which these 'people smugglers' bring people into the country and by the dangers that asylum seekers face just to get here. There are, however, asylum seekers that come into the country by far less dangerous means, eg. cheap airline travel. The bogus asylum seekers that travel back to their own country for medical help are obviously not in any danger in their own country (hence the term 'bogus') and do invalidate their claims for asylum. Apparantly they return and make new claims under different names. I have to confess Ormondroyd that I am one of your detested Daily Mail readers. Think of me what you will, but no-one that knows me could ever describe me as right wing.

I also think you have blurred rascism and the immigration issue. Unlike Bradford, where I live we have far less racial tension. My personal view is that anyone of any culture, race, religion, ethnic background is British/English/Scottish, etc (don't want to spark the debate on Britishness) once they are granted citizenship. We are spending an awful lot of money though on supporting a large number of immigrants. I firmly believe that anyone in genuine need should be welcomed and granted protection, but unfortunately we don't have the space or resources to welcome absolutely everyone who wants to live in Britain. I'm not completely sure of the law but I think that asylum seekers are supposed to claim asylum in the first country they reach. If this is the case then why are asylum seekers from other EU countries still trying to make their way here?

Your absolutely correct. I wouldn't put myself and my family through the type of ordeal that some immigrants go through. I have heard some truly moving stories from some immigrants that have brought me to tears. However, once I was safe, in England, with food and shelter I wouldn't be complaining about a lack of luxuries and I don't believe genuine asylum seekers do either.

In an ideal world, yes, I'd be perfectly happy for anyone people to live in any country they want. As many people that wanted to could come and live here. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, we don't have the space or the resources. We need to decide quickly and correctly those who are genuine and those who aren't, and deport those who aren't. We also need to spread the financial cost more evenly throughout the EU. The money saved could be spent on better facilities for genuine asylum seekers.

*jumps in with both feet*

I have just read in the newspapers that the European Courts have declared one of our asylum seekers' detention centres illegal. It has a gym, tennis courts, sat TV, pool, etc...but the gates to the complex are locked. Apparently this breaches the freedom of the asylum seekers. And not only is the centre deemed illegal, but the court ruled that the people detained there..all 10,000 of them, are to be allowed to sue the government and claim compensation of up to £10,000 each.
Yes, asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. Tell that to the French! The camp near the Chunnel is used as a starting point for illegal entry into the UK, and the French do nothing about it. They just return those caught trying to the camp, so that they can try again.
If they are genuine refugees, then surely they should be happy to have reached safety, no matter where. To continue to try for the UK smacks of dubious claims.
I am not against asylum seekers, just attempts to come to a country for the sole purpose of ripping it off. When we have people lying on trolleys in hospital corridors, how can we justify spending such vast amounts of money on a system that plainly does not work?

In Kent, council tax is high and the second largest sum of money that is spent is on social services. A large amount of this is spent on asylum seekers. Social services is struggling. I have worked along side social workers, they don't have enough money to provide the care needed to look after the sick, disabled and elderly. It has been on the local news in the last couple of days that Kent County Council is seriously considering sending the elderly of Kent to other countries as social services has not been able to fund nursing homes here so there are no places for the elderly to go.

I won't go in to my views on the NHS and social services and care of the elderly, that would fill a forum of its own. I do think that it's a grim sort of irony though. While every day hundred of asylum seekers are coming in to Kent, KCC is thinking it will have to get rid of some of its current residents to make way for them.

I have to ask the obvious question, deackie: if you're not right-wing, why on do you read that Godawful rag the 'Mail'? I occasionally look at it on the basis that it's wise to know your enemy, but I'm not sure that my would approve. It's definitely bad for my blood pressure!

I don't doubt that some asylum seekers arrive by air, but I still find that returning-home-for-medical-treatment story hard to swallow. But then, I find most things I read in the 'Mail' unbelievable, infuriating or both.

I'd say that racism and the immigration issue are pretty intimately connected. The line between them is inevitably blurred. But I do agree that the cost of asylum should be shared equitably around the EU.

Ormondroyd - first let me assure you that I am *NOT* right wing. I have problems with the whole political system in this country (another topic that could take a forum of its own) and as a consequence I vote in local elections for the candidate that I believe will do the best to represent the electorate, regardless of their party politics. I do not vote in general elections because I detest every one of the main political parties and have an innate distrust of politicians. I'm one of those people who believes the whole notion that this country is democratic ridiculous and I would like a 'none of the above' box on all ballot papers to allow people to register their feelings. Have you heard of the political compass? I fall in the bottom left quadrant.

The reason I read the Daily Mail? Not very deep and meaningful reason I'm afraid. I like to read a tabloid because it's not so big and bulky(I'm shallow, OK ) and the Daily Mail is slightly better than the other choice of tabloids or should I start reading The Sun to even out the political bias ? I believe that I am intelligent enough to be able to read one view of something without being swayed into believing that anything I read is not biased. It wouldn't matter which newspaper I read, which news programme I watch, I know that everything is being reported from the journalists' own viewpoints and I have to make up my own mind what I think.

(Oh, the DM has a good TV guide too )

Fair enough, deackie. I have a soft spot for the 'Express', actually. It's fairly neutral politically and I like the puzzles!

And there was me thinking you had a right to be all high and mighty with me The Times 2 crossword has always been my favourite. The print comes off the Times and leaves my hands all black though

The online 'Guardian' is my favourite read, though. It's in-depth and informative, it caters to my political prejudices and it's free!

And the print doesn't rub off an online newspaper either. Perfect

Has anybody actually pointed out the utilitarian argument for *more* immigration? That we have a falling birthrate, and that we desparately need plenty of young, energetic, people to pay for the old people to be kept alive? Look at the state that Japan is getting into, and this in part because the population is getting demographically older.

I still remember the days of the Vietnamese boat people who were , comparatively speaking, welcomed here with open arms. What happened to that spirit of compassion? Why this readiness on the part of politicians to engage in a Dutch Auction on immigration quotas?
FM

I tried, but I'm not sure if I succeeded, to demonstrate that the immigration debate is not purely a racist issue. My own feelings have nothing to do with where people come from, but a purely utilitarian question of whether we can support them. I would hope we could. I believe everyone has the basic human right to live without fear of persecution -- religious, political, racial or any other kind; to live without fear of war, and to have at the very LEAST their basic needs met. Everyone. And everyone, no matter where they come from, whether they live in a priveleged society or in the poorest of the third world nations, whether they are the most skilled person in the world, or a poor unskilled labourer has equal worth.

I think Felonious Monk has a point: at some point our declining birth rate is going to tell against us. Let's hope that compassion and utility can work together towards the same end. A society that is not compassionate is beyond hope.

I think that if this issue reveals anything about a country it is the way that it perceives its own nationality. America accepts a huge amount of immigrants each year. America sees itself primarily as a land of ideals, not of races, and is quite happy to accept immigrants proviing they sign up to ideals of that country. On the other hand, the sense of there being an English 'race' is rather strong: their (not my, I'm Welsh) sense of nationhood is identified closely with blood and colour.

There was a revealing article in the Guardian yesterday, where Mike Parker, editor of the Rough Guide to Wales, said that the main thing wrong with the Principality was that there were too many xenophobic redneck English moving there, trying to escape 'tidal waves of immigrants'. Says something, eh?

FM

Really.
I was wondering where they had All gone to,
All those Cockney Working Class Peabody Estate English Stereoypes.

Blimey, it was quite a surprise to see this thread pop up again after nearly two years! But now that it has, I'll take the opportunity to mention a current news story that I found rather darkly comic: a BNP councillor being suspended for bringing the party into disrepute.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3164423.stm

You have to hand it to young Councillor Smith. Being deemed to have lowered the tone of the BNP really does represent some sort of perverse achievement. But I've been moderated before for being rude about his party, so I'd better add quickly that I do not doubt for a second that Councillor Smith is even now poring over books of economic theory and carefully considering how best he can serve the good people of Burnley in his new role as an Independent.

I mean, you only have to look at his photo to see what a sensitive and serious-minded politician he is.