QED

Let’s Lift the Veil on Asylum Seekers

veilingWhile adherence to prevailing notions of political correctness has generated strong pressure for acceptance of large scale immigration for perceived humanitarian reasons, consideration of outcomes has been accorded little attention. The current source for mass asylum seeking is coming almost entirely from the Muslim nations of North Africa and the Middle East. Without exception the governments of these nations are characterised by high levels of repression, corruption and incompetence. Economic stagnation is pervasive, relieved only by lavish non-productive spending where oil wealth is available.

Rarely do any of these governments change peacefully through an open fair election.  Coups, revolutions or the death of a leader is the norm for any change in regime. Often this is then accompanied by a period of civil violence, commonly reaching extreme levels until some faction prevails, only to re-establish similar, or even worse, levels of repression, corruption and incompetence. That this pattern is so widespread, pervasive and persistent in these nations makes it unlikely to be only a matter of random mischance. It is difficult to avoid considering that it must arise from some common, underlying propensities which manifest as ongoing high levels of intolerance, repression, corruption, intractable factionalism, extreme violence and fanatical commitment to differing fundamentalist religious interpretations.

High levels of such immigrants present a significant problem in bringing with them these propensities. This risk must then be compounded if the same tendencies also serve to strongly inhibit assimilation into the host culture and increase still further if poor assimilation leads to concentration in ghettos where the social malaise which drove the emigration continues to be propagated. Meanwhile the dysfunction in the source nations continues apace with no sign of improvement and any facilitation of immigration elsewhere is likely to only encourage an even greater wave of refugees.

Continuation of cultural practices which clearly violate the laws of the host country are already common, and demands for legal recognition of sharia law are beginning to be made.  In a democratic system, where a voting bloc of 10% of an electorate can determine the outcome of elections, it is only a matter of time before demands for such recognition start to be granted on some level and then, inevitably, expanded. The question of whether accepting large numbers of such refugees alleviates human suffering or spreads it deserves careful consideration.

Although our own governments like to pay lip service to evidence-based policy, they tend to do little to develop or assess such evidence. In Australia we already have a well-established and mostly capable government body which could readily produce the evidence needed in this regard. This is the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and all government need do is request it be done.

Existing immigration statistics are largely restricted to overall numbers for different regions and a limited amount of data on the composition of immigrant families.  For a genuine evidence-based policy on immigration and refugees much more information about the detailed demographics of asylum seekers and other immigrants is essential.  A much clearer picture is needed of who they are, where they come from, how and why they come, what they bring in the way of skills, where they settle, their employment, education, health and welfare requirements, crime statistics, connections with militant fundamentalism and terrorism, as well as the general nature of their assimilation or lack thereof.

It would not be difficult for parliament to establish a bipartisan committee to determine the type of information to request and to liaise with the ABS to develop it.  Genuine, evidence-based policy could then be possible. Continuing to bumble around in regard to immigration and asylum with little knowledge of what we are actually doing or what the results are until they become obviously manifest and too late to avoid would be a travesty.

The UN Refugee Agency reports there are some 65 million displaced persons globally, of which 39% are in the Middle East and North Africa. Some 54% of the global total comes from just three countries — Somalia, Syria and Afghanistan. It is obvious that without a huge increase in numbers, acceptance of asylum seekers in developed countries can do little to alleviate the massive problem; moreover, it is not at all apparent that the asylum seekers are very pleased with their host countries or have any desire to assimilate with their hosts’ culture. On the contrary, there seems to be a growing hatred of their hosts by at least some of them, a loathing that is manifesting in acts of horrendous violence. Even if such extremism only comes from a very small minority of refugees, it cannot negate the fact they are drawn from a particular group and that more will arrive unless such individuals can be better identified and screened out.

Regardless of how one feels about this issue much better information on immigrant success is badly needed. Naively accepting large numbers of refugees from the most dysfunctional societies on the planet with scant assessment of the results being achieved would seem almost beyond belief if it were not fact. At best they must almost certainly add to an already problematic welfare burden. However, if many of these refugees also despise us, detest our culture, have no intention of assimilating and fervently wish to make their new home much more like the one from which they fled, we would seem to be creating a major problem for ourselves by bringing them in.

If the evidence were to indicate no significant difference in the success of immigrants from various sources, then we can comfortably cease any concern in this regard. However, in the likely event that significant differences are found, it must surely be sensible to give priority to those likely to be most successful in adapting to our society and leave those likely to be unhappy here to find asylum in other cultures more to their own liking.

In any event, whatever alleviation of suffering which might be achieved by accepting refugees can only be trivial in relation to the overall global magnitude of the problem. Meanwhile, demographics, oil industry economics and resource depletion are set to exacerbate the already abysmal problems inflicting the source nations. The only real hope for a solution is at the source and it is there that any effective effort must be focused.

For a host nation to naively infect itself with a metastasising societal malignancy through mindless adherence to ill-conceived notions of political correctness affords an excellent prospect for a Darwin Award on a national level.  If ever there has been the need for the precautionary approach this must surely be it.

18 comments
  • Jody

    The people in Melbourne know all too well about crime gangs and anti-social behaviour, all started by sub-Saharan African ‘migrants’. There’s the cone of silence over all of this and the people going on suffering and watching the value of their real estate decline. The bien pensant have this attitude: “Don’t discuss race because that makes you a racist; we must work out what is wrong with AUSTRALIAN society that criminal gangs can run rampant. We want an immigration policy which is non-discriminatory and if you oppose that you are xenophobic and racist. Also, we have obligations to these refugees and we think it’s a good idea to take them – and they need to go to YOUR area”.

    I’ve thinking wondering lately; how many Jews were engaged in anti-social violence and criminal behaviour when they came to this country as refugees before, during and after WW2. If somebody has the answer to this question – with numbers – I’d like to hear it.

    • [email protected]

      An uncle (himself a post WWII reffo) did say that the Ukranian reffos he paid as day labourers when building a house where quick to produce a knife and he didn’t much working with them. I don’t however believe it could have been anything like our Apex gangs or it would have been all over the news.

      I assume most of the post WWII reffos were like my father’s family, in that they were:

      fingerprinted in the selection process so that you couldn’t then send a healthy look alike for the chest x-ray and medical,
      had to accept that they could be sent to do manual labour in remote areas, and
      before getting citizenship they had to advertise in the newspaper so people could object if they wanted to.

      It seemed to work, nobody appeared to go back over the iron curtain to find a cousin to marry.

  • [email protected]

    I have long thought and said that Australia should have only ONE culture – OURS – and that that culture should be as free market/laissez faire economically as is possible. We are a multi-racial country, and maybe we should/could be even more multi-racial. But that said, in a true democracy becoming more multi-racial is something that we all should be allowed to have some sort of meaningful say on, and not just have it imposed on us by the un-elected elites of the ABC, the media and academia.
    If we can have a plebiscite on the issue of same sex ‘marriage’/marriage ‘equality’, which in reality is a minor issue when it comes to determining our future and our culture, then a plebiscite/referendum on levels of migration and on the types and sources of immigrants allowed to come here should be possible, and it would be far more important/meaningful because it would have a far bigger impact on the continuation and development of our culture. Even whether we take any ‘refugees’ at all should be up for debate. I say that even though I married the daughter of genuine refugees from post WW2 who were escaping from the ‘culture’ of communism.
    Leftists, of course would object, because they have only ever viewed democracy as a means of legitimising their desire to be able to vote themselves access to the wealth created by other people, and to control people, not to give people any real say in matters like this. Leftists love ‘democracy’ only when it suits them. Democracy is viewed by a lot of leftists in the same way as that of Erdogan of Turkey views it, – Democracy is like a bus, when you arrive at your destination, you step off. Thanks to leftist pressure via the media we have already ‘stepped off the bus’ on a great many issues, but I would like to think that our culture is one area where we should be allowed to keep riding the ‘democratic bus’.

    • [email protected]

      I agree almost entirely with your comment.
      However – “We are a multi-racial country, and maybe we should/could be even more multi-racial.” – is at the heart of the problem as I see it.
      Multi-cultural vs multi-ethnic (multi-racial).
      They are clearly very different, but it suits various PC driven agendas to muddy the waters.
      To seriously suggest that Australians generally are in any way racist means that you have never travelled extensively overseas – or even been overseas.
      Australians have a culture – and a very successful culture that is Judeo Christian with admirable characteristics such as a “fair go” and tolerance with a very individualistic “mind your own business” approach.
      Some immigrants (many ? / most ? ) want to bring their failed culture with them – a mixture of religious or political hatreds , endemic intolerance and a penchant for violence which was o