Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Australia Stopped Illegal Immigration
Just two years ago, Australians were told that “push factors,” not our government’s policies, were responsible for the increase in refugee boats arriving on our shores. Fortunately, the Australian people elected a new government with new policies designed to “Stop the Boats.” The results are to your right. And no, 2014 and 2015 aren’t lacking data: they properly indicate that there were, in effect, no more boats.
To give you some background, a significant number of boats carrying “asylum seekers” began arriving in Australia in 1999. Concerned, John Howard’s government instituted a policy of immediately detaining all unauthorised arrivals before transferring them to Australian-run detention centers in nearby nations (the “Pacific Solution”), as well as creating a new visa category for those already here that could not be converted into permanent residence status. Along with a high profile detention effort (The Tampa Affair) in 2001, the message got out and the arrivals dried up. In 2002, there was just one boat with one person.
Over the next few years, the smugglers occasionally probed. Six boats arrived with 60 people in 2006. But the policy was controversial. We were turning our backs on asylum seekers (of course, very few had come directly from their place of alleged persecution).
In 2007, a new, more compassionate government was elected. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party closed down the Pacific detention centers (which, by then, has a total of one — 1! — inmate) and eased up on policy. Predictably, the boats returned. Only seven in its first full year of government, with 161 people. But in 2009, it was 60 boats with over 2,500 people. In 2012 it was 278 boats with 17,000 people. And during those few years, an estimated 1,200 would-be arrivals — four percent of the total — drowned at sea.
The Labor government insisted that their policy wasn’t to blame. It was, instead, “push factors” beyond its control. Events overseas had generated waves of displaced people, so it was only natural that the numbers had gone up. The suspicious coincidence between policy changes and arrivals statistics meant nothing. I personally saw and heard dozens of smart people — journalists, judges, academics — on TV and radio repeating this line.
The Labor government was in turmoil over internal dissension and obvious policy failures. The opposition Liberals — Australia’s conservative party — said that, if elected, they’d fix the boat arrivals. They promised to get them down to near zero in their first term (three years here). They’d re-introduce the “Pacific Solution,” temporary visas, and boat “turn backs” (when safe to do so, they said).
Panicked, the Labor government changed Prime Minister (again!) a few months before the election, and started to re-open the offshore detention facilities (it took time; they’d fallen into disrepair). But it was too late. Led by Tony Abbott, the Liberals took power in September 2013 and introduced its policies — except for the temporary protection visas, which it couldn’t get through Parliament — with a twist: it appointed a senior military officer to run the program, declared it an “operational matter” that only warranted limited, occasional press briefings, which pulled the whole thing out of the news.
Now, look at the graphs again. To my knowledge, only one boat has arrived since 2014. The smugglers have largely stopped trying. There were eight attempts in the last year, resulting in eight tow-backs.
Moral: it is not just push factors. You don’t reduce illegal immigration by increasing the number of legal places; in these days of cheap travel and millions seeking a better life, demand is effectively infinite. Instead, you have to make it thoroughly not worth the while of the would-be entrants. Don’t let them stay, and make it clear that they will get no return on the money they pay the smugglers (boat passages to Australia were around $10,000 a head).
Incidentally, on a per capita basis, under the present “heartless” government, Australia accepts more genuinely assessed asylum seekers on a per capita basis than any other country.
Published in Foreign Policy
And fixing birthright citizenship?
Who says its broken? I believe Mr Yoo and Ms Coulter are to take up this debate today.
I do. It makes no sense to reward a burglar with the keys to your house.
Yeah, I read enough on this to have come to the same conclusion as Yoo as regards the current legal status. He didn’t discuss how we might fix it, though. Should be a pretty amusing discussion: my money’s on Yoo.
I haven’t yet hard much to dissuade me from Yoo’s position on the current legality, but there was a rather persuasive article in NRO a week or so ago.
A very influential book for me. Maybe I should re-read it.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1VFKB_enUS601US601&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=border+wall+court+challenges
Basically the left throws up impediments to building the wall through environmental challenges and the like. I believe the supreme court rejected the last one, but at this point we have a Democratic executive – so don’t expect much movement on building that wall.
Which pretty much sums to: The courts never blocked building a wall. But thanks for the link, nevertheless.
Except between 2006 when the wall was authorized and 2008 when the challenge died there was an injunction against building the wall. What happened in 2008?
I mean I guess a bunch of enterprising Republican Senators could grab their shovels, head to Home Depot and buy some cement, but the execution of the law really lies with the executive doesn’t it?
Are you kidding? Australia has a coastline thats 16000 miles long.
Build a REAL fence. Police visa overstays, and punish those who violate the law.
Punish employers who hire illegals. Punish those who steal SS numbers and identities.
It’s not rocket science.
And believe me its much easier to patrol 16000 miles of coast with the technology we have than a porous border. The routes the “boat people” were taking were well known and they were able to be interdicted. The US border is a whole different beast.
Its not simply a matter of size. *glances nervously at wife*
And that may help some. But it probably won’t make a huge dent. People just want to live in America, because America is a wonderful place to live.
This law?
So apparently they’ve proceeded in accordance with the Republican Congress’ wishes, and done whatever the heck they felt like…
Come on we have about 2000 miles of Southern border. About half is impassible. The routes the illegals take are well known to us too. We have lots of technology to augment a fence.
We managed the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program, building a fence is childs play. We just need the will to do it.
Well why don’t we give it a try and see if it works. If it’s not enough we can do more.
Or should we just surrender now?
The southern border isn’t even how most illegals come to the US (the vast majority simply overstay their visas). But even if you got your wall (I’m not against a wall, I just recognize its limitations) – there is no wall built that a smart man won’t find his way around.
Why is it always a choice between your way or utter surrender?
Did you miss in my earlier post where I mentioned a system or tracking visa’s and those who overstay? Not exactly rocket science either.
Okay, I’ll settle for keeping the stupid out, okay?
Okay, whats your suggestion?
I favor disincentivizing people to come here through a combination of e-verify, fines for employers caught employing illegals and the dismantling of the welfare state.
I agree to all that. Seriously, which do you think would be harder to do, “dismantle the welfare state”, or build a fence?
I don’t think the fence will be effective so I really don’t favor wasting money on it.
Dismantling the welfare state on the other hand has all kinds of benefits beyond illegal immigration.
I agree, but everybody balks when I suggest we either buy Mexico or invade it then clean it out.
Well, at least you dream big. Now all you need to do is convince the almost 50% of the occupants of the US to give up the teat.
If we didn’t think we could do that what is the point of even being conservatives?
Do what Eisenhower did.
Don’t just deport them back across the border. Put them on trains and deport them all the way back to the border with the Yucatan.
Thats gonna be like fighting the Cold War, a project for a generation.
I’d like to stop the bleeding now. There is a pretty broad consensus in the US population to control the border, and illegal immigration. You won’t get a consensus on the Welfare state for quite awhile.
“Jamie Lockett:
Keep in mind that as an island nation it is easier to secure the border (despite its massive size) than in a situation like America. Not saying it can’t, or shouldn’t, be done in the US, but the policies required here are not mirror images of those instituted in Australia.”
I would argue that it’s harder. Lots of empty coastline, far less defensive manpower.
Gee whiz, you go to bed on Friday night, get up on Saturday morning, and find that while you’ve been sleeping your post has been promoted, and accumulated three pages of comments. I’d better start reading.