Refugees… Asylum Seekers… Economic Migrants…
What Difference is there in a Name…
In so far as How Australian Immigration Policy Should be Formulated?

Index

1.     Introduction
2.	  Rectification of Names - Application in a Political Context
3.	  Reality is Richer than a Name
4.	  A Controversy is Usually not a Dispute over Definitions
5.	  Ideal Principles in Reality Conflict
6.	  Same Principles - Different Interpretative Scoping
7.	  What Primary and Secondary Principles at Play in this Controversy?
8.	  Some Guidelines for the Provisional Resolution of Conflict
9.	  Application of this Guideline?
10.	  Is there a Role for Political Optimism?
11.	  A Complex Problem Usually Needs a Complex Solution?
12.	  A Systematic Recapitulation

1.	
Introduction

The Tampa incident, and similar events, are generally understood to have had important ramifications for the Australian Federal Election in 2001. Although relatively recent the type of reactions elicited by this migrational phenomenon have had a long history with its own repertoire, or genre, of classic responses! As a recurrent phenomenon we could say, e.g., that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia for the last two hundred years may well have felt the same way the Australian media seem to have implicitly cast their readership and viewers, i.e., as indirect witnesses to a spectacle that is to be regarded by them with some fear and trepidation, and, even dread at the possible fact that it might symbolically signal an impending flood of distinctively different newcomers to these shores who, when sufficiently gathered, would have no time for our customs in the same  manner as we have collectively treated the most native of our inhabitants! Where the media has feared to tread in this controversy some of our politicians have made this type of point abundantly explicit, either through sins of commission or sins of omission, and have used, if not more correctly abused, the fourth estate; and its audience, by an active dissemination of those fears and a selectively distorted misrepresented interpretation of the same. The media, as a necessary party to this sleight of hand, I am saddened to say, have, by their passivity, through their unprofessional journalistic inertia, merely fed to us the press releases fed to them by the major parties without any form of an active investigative reporting or critical commentary!

	Hopefully, in our crossing of this swirling sea of controversy, we will be able to get to the other side in one piece and not find ourselves waylaid by arguments that have no foundations and merely float in what ever direction they find themselves propelled by the winds of prejudice. But, as it is a sunny day, let us be politically optimistic that we will be able to see clearly and find a safe passage through such issues. Let us, therefore, look more closely at both this recurrent phenomenon and previous responses provoked by it and through reflection and debate upon the same come to some form of a collective understanding as to how Australia might better deal with this type of event.

2.   Rectification of Names - Application in a Political Context

	The Chinese philosopher, known by his Latinised name of Confucius, proposed an invaluable tool for the thinking person, namely, the Rectification of Names, in other words, a method in critical thinking whereby "you should call a spade a 'spade' when it is a spade", especially if you needed a spade in order to dig the garden. Moreover, this doctrine also has important political implications! For instance, the Emperor should be known as 'The Emperor', the subject as 'a subject', the father as 'the father', a son as 'a son'…. By knowing the name of an object you then knew where it stood in this political scheme of things and where you stood in relation to it! Your political behaviour should then conform accordingly… and the world would then be a place of ongoing peace and harmony….

	There is much merit in this rectification of names. Too often we live in a world where a not properly thought-out newer language is made to supersede  an adequate time-tested older vision of the world in the process muddling "just 'what' is what, and, just what that 'what' is not"! So in the light of this topic today let us ask ourselves "what type of people are we really dealing with here - 'refugees'… 'asylum seekers'… 'economic migrants'… 'persons smuggled by people smugglers'… 'potential citizens'… 'human beings'…?"

3.	 Reality Richer than a Name

This rectification of names is an important technique in thinking straight. As a 
simple tool it is invaluable. Unfortunately, as a rule, as a sort of metaphor, it can only go so far. Reality is infinitely richer than a name and the meaning and meaningfulness attached to it! A 'chair', e.g., 'is a device to sit on'. But a 'chair' can also be a 'non-chair' and used perhaps as a table, as an artwork, as fuel for a cold Winter's fire, as a weapon, as a stepladder… in what ever manner you might find it useful to you….
	
	So, if we lived in a world where all names were subjected to a strict process of rectification how could we cross the street if the traffic lights were stuck in the don't cross mode? Or worse, if we were to find a sign that said "do not read this sign", or "this doors must be kept locked at all time"…. So the rectification of names is only half the picture and the lesser 'half' at that!

4.	
A Controversy is Usually not a Dispute over Definitions

A controversy is not usually a dispute over names! But a dispute over principles! It is quite conceivable that a person could be 'a refugee'… 'an asylum seeker'… 'an economic migrant'... Then, in my own case, one could easily make out a case that I came to this country as an economic migrant. I was certainly not a refugee. On the other hand an Afghan in the year 2000 could well be a refugee but in adopting Australia as their preferred destination of refuge could well be an economic migrant at the same time. Then, some of us, in the light of this evaluation, might prefer to settle for the expression 'asylum seeker'. So these names, despite varying degrees of connotational overlay cannot be the problem when most people can agree how to define them and how to apply them. No! This controversy cannot be over names and their definitions. It must be a dispute centred on principles, like all other controversies! 

  
5.   Ideal Principles in Reality Conflict

	The life-world is too rich to be adequately inventoried! We fool ourselves if we think we can successfully achieve this sense of magical control in so far as we have a name for every thing. This world-of-life being 'one' world implies that no principles can theoretically be extracted from it in an pure, isolated form or format. Ideal principles therefore must conflict but only ideally. In reality we are witness to the ongoing richness of resolution that constitutes the current manner of this wonderful world-of-life in all its manifold variety and existential surprise! If we would but be attentive to it!

6.   Same Principles - Different Interpretative Scoping

What makes a controversy truly controversial is the fact that all parties actually agree to uphold all of, or most of, the same perceived principles at the centre of the dispute. Where they differ is how they will 'scope' those principles; principles that will naturally overlap, or conflict, come in primary and secondary forms of association, etc.

E.g., in the controversy of abortion both parties hold that killing should not be conducted lightly if at all, that the individual has rights, etc. The trouble only arises when humans try to scope these principles by discounting some and re-marking up others. So the pro-abortionist would insist on the rights of the mother to choose if she is to have an abortion or not. Whilst the anti-abortionist will insist that abortion is nothing more or less than murder (even though many right wing anti-abortionist also support the death penalty… a fact that should surely support my recognition of a scoping of principles in and through an attempt to interpret a path through their natural collision when attended to in such an ideal, artificial manner). 

7.   What Primary and Secondary Principles are at Play in this Controversy

	What principles might we list here. I have suggested a few and noted some secondary ones as well:

1.	That a country should be able to exercise (absolute) sovereignty over its own borders.
2.	We are all free citizens of this world and should be able to travel (within reason) where ever we like, when ever we like.
3.	That everyone should have a right to full employment.
4.	That everyone has the right to a happy life.
5.	That everyone has the right to asylum as a refugee.
6.	That 'our way of life' has been fought for and we should do the same.
7.	It is not patriotic to let your country be overrun by other peoples….

Some Secondary Principles might be:

1.	A country can only support so many mouths and feet (and that Australia is country that cannot support many more people?).
2.	All economic migrants should join the pre-existent queue and not jump it.
3.	All parents have the right to hope for the best for their children.
4.	Children shouldn't be locked up and treated as criminals.
5.	People should not lie about their origins in order to gain an advantage over others.
6.	All punishment should be proportionate with the 'crime'.
7.	People should not be punished for the future crimes of others as a 'warning' to them to desist from their illegal ways….

What else might we add here… any suggestions?

8.   Some Guidelines for the Provisional Resolution of Conflict

Let me list a provisional set of headings that might help us find a path through this maze of conflict and make some sense of it for ourselves:

1.	Practise a simple rectification of names. Define your key terms and ask yourself whether you agree with those definitions and how far you might travel with them.
2.	Isolate the fundamental ideal principles that seem to be the primary and secondary bedrock of the controversy.
3.	Ascertain where you might consider yourself as first standing in this dialectical debate, examine how you individually scope these key principles.
4.	Ascertain what prejudices seem to be driving those choices exercised in point no.3.
5.	Adopt the principle "that what is good for the goose is good for the gander" and "what is not good for the goose might not be good for the gander".
6.	In the light of no.5 how might you modify or qualify your initial prejudices/pre-judgments on these issues?
7.	Ascertain who is most effected by 'our decisions' and try to see the situation from their point of view, in the process listing those parties that should be given some form of a priority (given the adoption of this utilitarian perspective)..
8.	What measures could be adopted for dealing with and improving the root-causes of that situation(al crisis).
9.	What ideals should we/this country stand for?
10.	Can we look back on history, see how previous situations were 'dealt with' and in reflection learn not to repeat the same mistakes?
11.	Can we look ourselves in the mirror and state the real nature of our position along with its main consequences?
12.	Could we stand in front of our peers… the country… the world… and state our final/overall position in this mater??

9.   Application of this Guideline?

In the application of this guideline sketched out in section 8., how would we go about it… how would we debate it…? Would we be happy to give it our seal of approval? What complaints might we register if we were in the position of the refugee and/ or asylum seeker and/or economic migrant…? Are there some principles that we should not attempt to scope? Or only qualify marginally…?
 
10.  Is there a Role for Political Optimism??

	Is there a role for political optimism - or is optimism merely the opium of wishy-washy idealists, short-sighted fools and the politically naïve. Or despite corruption, despotism, war and famine should we cease to believe that even the sky above our head is thing of joy and beauty long with the sublimeness of the real world despite its disfigurement at the hands of opportunists..? What do we feel is our 'duty' in this type of situation..?
 
	Can we find some hope in the decisions of others that appear to have a balanced and clearer understanding of both the situation and the controversy that surrounds it… in essence can we adopt an informed transcendental suspension and could we work through these issues with some common sense and some sense of humanity…and can we dare hope to find the same goodwill from some of our peers? And to what extent should we remonstrate with those who seem to have strayed from this path of goodwill and fairness… characteristics that seem to be embedded in the 'Australian way of life'… or is that only to be found in the 'Great Myth of the Australian Way of Doing Things'..?!

11.	
A Complex Problem Usually Needs a Complex Solution

The one-size-fits-all solution of mandatory detention, while the refugee's credentials or lack of credentials are being ascertained, must appear inept and simplistic and is patently intended as a warning to other would-be-migrants that 'boat people', etc., are not welcome upon these shores. I am of the opinion that a complex problem usually stands in need a of complex solution or set of solutions. Moreover, I also believe that the goodwill deserved by a country is a valuable resource, a resource that should not be squandered by such clumsy measures as entailed in the enforcement of this heartless policy. One of the reasons Australia figures, and still figures, so highly among most people on this planet is that it truly represents one of the better democracies, is indeed a good place to receive education, find work and bring up a family…live the good life! This goodwill well earned lends to the presence of Australia an added weight to its voice in its dealings with other countries and is something that should not be taken lightly or thrown away through such a slavish adherence to practices that are inflexible and clumsy, cruel and heartless. Surely locking whole families out in the desert, miles from fellow ethnic communities that could support these migrants, without access to a wide range of educational facilities needed by potential migrants and being subjected to such primitive, harsh conditions is not something we would wish to have performed in our name. I am not saying, however, that there is no place for detention - but what I am saying is that what ever we do should be done properly and humanely and not carried out in such an obviously brutal fashion when the time scale of this 'imprisonment' is so out of proportion to any 'crime' that may or may not have been committed. It seems we have got things around the wrong way? Those that seek asylum should be treated as asylum seekers! In the event that their application fails, what ever the percentage, only then should they be detained if they refuse to voluntarily return to their country of origin or point of embarkation. Surely, the return of such individuals would serve as ambassadors for this country, despite their being rejected by due process, rather than to have them act as agents disseminating a bad press that under these circumstances would be quite understandable?! 

12.	
A Systematic Recapitulation

History is never completely novel nor completely unexpected in the surprises it has in store for us. Moreover, through reflection, history is something we should learn from, at least to the extent that we do not commit the same old mistakes. As I have alluded to this recurrent phenomenon in our past history, let me note that although we have had many different types of peoples come to our shores none of the expected invasions materialised. On the other hand, the vibrant vitality of recent Australian culture is the best witness to what a healthy multiculturalism can offer to its citizens in return, having allowed such a healthy attitude towards 'difference' to flourish. Of course, such an approach is not, and never has been, a blank cheque for the wholesale unrestricted access of disparate peoples wishing to migrate here! But, by taking a more reasonable approach, one tempered by compassion, Australia has benefited in the past and should do so in the future from adopting this middle path. Let us, therefore, reach a consensus in this matter and therein try to formulate a reasonable immigration policy that fully meets the challenges we are currently being asked to face. 
		
						    Noël Tointon, Sydney, 6.8.02.