April this year 3,436 people arrived on illegal boats, most of whom identified as asylum seekers.
The trend of late has been an increasing flow of inbound boat arrivals - but for the sake of this discussion let's assume 3,436 per month remains constant for the next 12 months.
That's 42,232 people arriving by boat in the next year.
There are a few reasonably reliable indicative calculations of the costs of processing each asylum seeker in the first year after arrival.
Labor budgeted $1.1bn in the 2012/13 budget for processing asylum seekers on the assumption we would get 450 arrivals per month. That works out at a cost of $203,704 per person in Labor's cost estimates.
The Australian Council of Social Services calculated the cost of processing each asylum seeker in detention on Christmas Island as $180,000 for the first year.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/underclass-worry-in-migrants-daily-struggle-20120802-23ihl.html
Let's go with the lower figure of $180,000 by 42,232 people - that's $7.42 billion
That buys a lot of Gonski, NDIS or increased Medicare levy.
I know these calculations are imperfect and indicative - but surely the scale of the problem and the costs are pretty clear to anyone with a calculator who reads this blog. How are we simply letting day after day roll on as this huge and uncontrolled cost accumulates?
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Illegal numbers out of control
From a reader:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Buy a couple used Cruise liners of the 2,500-3,000 passenger class.
Every two weeks a cruise liner will depart for the home country of origin with 1,000-2,000 passengers.
Give each adult 'passenger' AUD 40,000, a tub of powder baby-milk and a tee-shirt saying I <3 AUS! Give any kids in the group some free DVD's, bottle of multi-vitamins and a game console.
That could save what, $3-4Billion/yr?
Anon makes a good point. Australia handles boat people through a very expensive - and cruel - process.
Compared to most European countries and the US. Australia has a modest immigration problem. 42,000 a year might sound a lot to the parochial Australian ear, but it's actually equal to only one medium sized home-and-away AFL footy crowd.
Most boat people who arrive in Australia by boat are found to be genuine refugees. They mainly come from countries that are, or have recently been, torn apart by war and civil conflict - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Sri Lanka. Of course those who are not real refugees should be sent home.
But the idea that Australia can stop the the outflow of refugees from these countries by being "tough" has more to do with domestic Australian politics than reality.
Moreover, it is not illegal to seek asylum, and Australia is duty bound to meet its obligations under the UN refugee convention.
In fact, many real "illegal" immigrants (rather than refugees) who arrive in Australia come by air and overstay their visas. But for some reason this side of the problem hardly rates a mention by our politicians who cynically use the word "boats" to scare voters into believing we are being "invaded".
Dumping one's passport is illegal.
Queue-jumping other people that are waiting in-line already is unfair.
The U.N.? Corrupt and we do not need to be farming out our sovereignty to others.
The taxpayer should not have to pick up the tab for all of this. If Labor wants this so bad, they can pay for it out of their own ill-gotten union dues.
NGF, it appear that you are part of the unfortunate groupthink scripted by the likes of the ABC and the Fairfax press. As espoused by both the Federal Police, and ASIO, these people are economic refugees.
Compared to most countries in the world, Australia takes more refugees per head of population.
Unfortunately, genuine refugees are now being left behind due to the queue jumping people with the means (money) to gain illegal entry. Even the Federal government, in advertising classes them as illegal.
They have the means to leave the country, arrive by aircraft in Malaysia or Indonesia, and then enter the country unidentified. These are not genuine people in fear, they are middle-class by the main (confirmed by the Federal Police Commissioner in an article in the Australian last year) seeking a better economic life.
They are only found to be genuine refugees through a corrupted system orchestrated by the current government.
You would also be unaware of the other costs involved, including ongoing treatment for various diseases such as Hepatitis C (cost of drugs $3000 a month for the rest of their life), and there are many hundreds of them in the system now, incurable and drug-resistant tuberculosis (cost per patient $1 million per treatment) and other numerous diseases not seen in this country for decades.
You should also factor in the cost of housing, ongoing social security and health. In addition, in a survey undertaken by the current government, it found that since 2007, 86% of all arrivals were still on unemployment benefits or disability pensions.
You are correct, it is not illegal to seek asylum in the first country accessed, however they have passed through other countries which can offer them asylum, and they have not asked for same. Your conclusion?
With regards to those who come by air, we know who they are, they have been granted visas before arrival and the majority of those who overstay are from European countries, and been found to be working and supporting themselves. When identified, there are absolutely no problems with repatriating them, as there are no legal appeals or any other nonsense involved. They do not cost the country hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The real cost will be in the tens of billions of dollars, however, if the population in Australia is happy and willing to admit that this will be the cost then that decision should be upheld. However, most of the population are unaware of the real cost to the country.
Your facts are also incorrect as to the numbers, as they multiply significantly when the inevitable family reunions occur over the years, so you may multiply the numbers arriving by boat by at least four times.
I for one, agree with the system that allows the arrival of genuine refugees identified as such by United Nations and from areas in real trouble, such as parts of Africa. This number is 14,000 year, however these genuine refugees no longer arrive as the numbers are taken by the illegal queue jumpers, with the means to bribe their way into this country. More suffering from those who are genuine.
Cost in the last 12 months, according to the Senate Order on Departmental and Agency Contracts, the cost from 1 January to 31 December 2012 was $8 billion for immigration.
It would seem that there could be 3 distinct classifications here needing to be separated in the discussion:
1) Political Asylum-seekers fleeing a tyrannical, repressive foreign Government.
2) Refugees spilling over the border fleeing plague, Natural disaster, or war. (Whom can be repatriated as soon as feasible).
3) Legal/illegal immigrants taking whatever circuitous route necessary to arrive in Australia (or another preferred country X,Y,Z) with the dream and goal of achieving a more prosperous life.
If so, then in my opinion the policy should be applied differently, according to whichever group said persons fall into.
Anon, simple, let them go through the process, instead of queue jumping.
Dear NGF...No.
They ARE illegal. They chose to dump their passports. They chose to pay a people smuggler. (Instead of using that very money to start their own business to make their own local community better. We're not talking a few bucks. Its a few thousand per person!)
What you're trying to do is the typical modern Left-Progressive nonsense of redefining meanings and terms to suit your emotionally irrational Utopian behaviour. For those who don't know Leftists always think in terms of "Social Justice"...This is at the cost of everything else. (See the Macquarie University student who was assaulted in her bed by an Sri Lankan asylum seeker. It exposed the Govt for outsourcing the boat people problem to third-parties like the Red Cross. It turns out the messed up policy has cost us $8 billion in 2012 alone as the Govt keeps paying third-party contractors! No wonder why the Gillard Govt can't find money for anything else! Massive Govt waste!)
I am a LEGAL immigrant. My father and mother went to the Australian Embassy in our country and applied. We waited for months for the Govt to clear us and filled in ALL the necessary paperwork. We came here in the early 1980s by Boeing 747-200 in Qantas colours.
The only relative of mine who arrived by boat was my late grandfather. He fled as Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese. ie: Commies don't give you much of a choice: Give them your house or you get a 7.62mm round in the chest...So my grandfather fled.
These people aren't fleeing from war, Communism, etc. They're fleeing because of welfare benefits. (They get $400+ a week. They can't get employment, so they sit around and do nothing. No different to a dole bludger.)
By the way, the Sri Lankan asylum seeker who was charged for assaulting that young woman at university is now on bail and released into Western Sydney suburb! His conditions are that he has to report to the police everyday until his trial. He still gets to collect his $400+ per week.
Funny how Australian families are struggling to pay their bills, while asylum seekers get $400+ to sit on their bums.
What's really disgusting is that the Govt dumps illegal immigrants into the community without telling ANYONE! (Mainly in Western suburbs where they hope no one will notice!) ...The typical Leftist BS excuse is that its racist to point them out! Isn't it racist when a Sri Lankan male breaks into a white girl's room to assault her? (The news will never say the victim was a white girl from the country, studying to be a vet. Because its politically incorrect and intolerant. It goes against Leftist narrative.)
It pisses me off that idiots like NGF thinks its OK to be accommodating to ILLEGAL immigrants, while us hardworking LEGAL immigrants (who actually contribute to this Nation) are left wondering why we wasted our time filling Govt paperwork and waiting, when we could have just jumped the queue.
But then, this is how ALL Leftists think. Emotionally driven. Economically incompetent. Always lying, manipulating, and redefining meanings to suit their agenda (as the ends justifies the means to them); Enjoy telling others what to do (tyranny of political correctness)...And most of all, never apologising for the mess they created upon society!
ie: Gillard and her cohorts will never have to say they're sorry for screwing up this Nation's economy while she collects her $493K per year ($177K pension if she is voted out and retires).
It fills me with great anger that the situation has come to this. I cannot wait until September and help make a contribution in throwing this garbage out and their stupid pursuit of "social justice". (More like creating Govt dependence!)
Various Anons,
Why the furious reaction? Yes, we have a problem, but it should be kept in perspective.
Australia's refugee and illegal immigration problems (the two ARE legally different) are small when compared to other countries. The US most European countries would happily trade their problems for ours. Unlike Australia, they are flooded with illegal economic migrants.
Just to pick up a few points:
It is a fact that most boat people who come to Australia are found to be genuine refugees. Once fully processed they are released into the community because they are LEGAL.
The 42,000 figure I used was Eric's extrapolation. The fact the the real figure is only 14,000 makes my point for me.
Most boat people do come from war and strife torn countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. If economic advantage was the main driver we would see huge numbers of Indonesian and PNG boat people - but we don't.
There is no law or rule that says refugees have to be poor. I have met wealthy people whose families were slaughtered by the Nazis in one era and by the Khmer Rouge in another. Refugee status is about persecution not wealth or poverty.
The two key transit countries in our region, Indonesia and Malaysia, do not permanently settle refugees.
Instead of spending huge amounts of money on locking people up after they arrive, all concerned would be better off if Australia spent the money on funding processing centres in Indonesia and Malaysia and flying the genuine refugees here. Set a clear annual quota (ie create a real queue instead of a fictional one), screen people properly in the region, push the people smugglers out of business and save lives that would otherwise be lost at sea.
My final comment is this: I'm fortunate enough to have grown up among former Holocaust refugees and to have been employed in a workplace that included several former Vietnamese, Cambodian and Burmese refugees.
In my experience, they were hugely grateful to Australia. And, as people who have overcome terrible adversity, they have great energy and make terrific citizens and taxpayers - if given half a chance.
Best wishes to you all.
Big difference from post WWII is that then Australia put refugees in work camps. For some years. My father in law was one of those.
As opposed to today's mess by an insane government leadership.
This unsustainable program must stop. We do not have the money for it. We can't save the whole world.
NGF mentioned a crucial point. Back around 2007, then Minister for Immigration Phillip Ruddock was electioneering at a small venue in Raymond Terrace, NSW that I stumbled across while filling in time.
After rabbiting on about the subject at large, he was asked by somebody 'Do we know how many illegal immigrants there are in Australia?' He went quite dark but admitted a number something like 7,510 adding that when they are tracked down, they have been replaced by newcomer 'illegals'. He also stated that majority of these arrivals are by air using very sophisticated forged documentation.
Sometime in 2012, somebody in the Gillard Government (the PM?) mentioned that illegal entrants now number around 62,000 with the government having little idea of just where they are in the community.
A significant factor is also that Australia has a wide open back door to New Zealand. Anybody gaining access to that land can virtually just wander into Australia.
The notion in defence policy that Australia can be defended against armed attack is somewhat farcical when small well-trained groups could very easily paralyse critical infrastructure to exert political influence. It is the unknown enemy within that is potentially the greatest defence issue.
NGF, one word, naivety.
Up until know I was not a fan of the Gonski experiment. Now I am if it increases comprehension and general education standards, that will allow a better analysis of facts.
NGF
You are correct in one part, 14,415arrived last year.
2008 4008 arrivals.
2009 5762
2010 10,565
2011 11,511
2012 14,415
2013 12,000 so far.
See a pattern?
NGF said: "Why the furious reaction? Yes, we have a problem, but it should be kept in perspective."
I recall various US politicians stating and arguing the same view back when the US national Debt was around $7T.
Sure, there's no need to get furious (that was a rather cheap shot btw, if curious), no. Just the need to get realistic about the trending situation and prudent about how to shift into gear a more sustainable immigration/refugee policy and practice.
(especially if a significant proportion of today's and tomorrow's immigrants (illegal) and refugee's are NOT fundamentally as 'grateful' to Australia and not as productive and energetic as citizen Tax payers as you experienced once upon a time)?
A modernized, sustainable and better refined Legal (documented) front door process perhaps? Absolutely.
God speed.
Anon 1,
I have three words for you: unthinking, hysterical fear.
Your own figures demonstrate that Australia has a relatively small problem when compared to other countries. For example, The undocumented immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people. On a pro rata basis, if Australia had the same problem there would be more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants in this country.
It is intellectually lazy to accuse me of "group think" and naivety. I could equally accuse you of parroting the slogans of irresponsible politicians and shock jocks. But what would that prove?
More importantly, it is easy to be a negative critic. I've put forward a solution, what's yours?
I certainly agree with Eric that the current situation is a shambles - although we probably disagree about why what should be done.
That was my last post on this topic. I'll be interested to see if anyone else puts forward any positive ideas about how to actually deal with the problem.
To NGF,
The US Govt does NOT spend $200k per undocumented immigrant!
Therein is only part of the issue.
Moreover, Australia is NOT the USA.
Australia however, does need to ask herself how complicated and dysfunctional an actual immigration policy she does want and can absorb, agreed.
That said, I think we can all agree on this point; that the current situation is simply unsustainable and unaffordable and as such, a sufficiently robust and decisive strategy and comprehensive restructuring of the overall immigration policy needs to be implemented.
It's time to stop blowing smoke up the excuse making, candy coating and denial.
I find it amazing that when someone discusses the matter with facts and figures, that all of a sudden, we are unthinking or hysterical or worse. From your replies I would certainly put you in the group think category, as espoused by the ABC and the Fairfax press. And yes you are naive.
My goodness, next I will be racist.
I live in Brisbane, and as far as I know there are no shock jocks, although I’m not aware as to what that really means, probably someone expressing an opinion that doesn’t agree with yours. Not that it is terribly important, however my diet is the ABC and SBS mainly, as it probably injects more intellectual input in that area, than other mainstream media.
The intellectual laziness comes when people are unable to take into account, knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and proper evaluation. You are part of that category, lazy intellectually.
The facts, espoused by the Australian Federal Police, and other federal agencies are that these people are not refugees, but illegal immigrants seeking an economic benefit.
They are taking the places of those who are genuine refugees, suffering in refugee camps in places like Africa. The majority arriving by taxi, are not fleeing persecution or worse. No doubt a percentage are, and they should be assessed as same.
The fact that the majority are assessed as being genuine refugees is due to the corrupt process of that assessment, as perpetrated by the current government.
The other point is that they are costing this country between $6 and $8 billion a year, which could be used for real refugees and others in this country. Add to this the ongoing, health and Social Security spend for decades.
Surely, that is an ethical question that you should think about, depriving real refugees of help, which Australia has gladly and willingly provided for generations. I believe that, the current intake of 14,000 genuine refugees, (now suspended) is the right thing to do, and that figure per head of population is greater than most countries in the world.
In addition, the ability to provide low paid and low skilled jobs in this country, such as manufacturing has disappeared, creating a social and economic problem for those arriving under the circumstances. These industries were key to the migrant intake after the Second World War.
The fact is that the majority of those who now arrive, and who have arrived since 2007 are still unemployed or on disability pensions.
In addition, for goodness sake, why on earth would you want to follow the total stuff up in social policy exhibited by Europe and America?
Another thing usually forgotten by those surrounded by groupthink, is the fact that 1000 have drowned at sea on the way. The train was stopped by 2007, and the current policy by the present government has contributed to the massive problem that we now inherit.
Anon @7.33
What a load of codswallop.
And there are no such crimes being committed at this moment by the locals?
We actually have laws to deal with these matters.
Getting back to NGF's valid point regarding 'illegal' entrants, many of them arriving by air on forged documentation and whereabouts perhaps now unknown to Australian authorities.
Apparently, 50 or more who have arrived on boats have failed national security assessments; ergo, how many of those who have arrived by other means and are now unlocatable might be internal security risks?
This aspect is the big elephant in the room seemingly just too hard for both of the major political parties to address.
Regarding migrant smuggling by air, there is not a great deal of literature or research done on the subject. However it is acknowledged that it involves use of forged documents by those who travel on commercial airline.
This is not the same as those who overstay their visa conditions, who make up a majority of those who have arrived by air and stayed.
Unlike those who arrived by boat, it is unusual for documents be destroyed prior to entry in order to seek asylum. What research has been done, shows that those entering here come for economic purposes, naturally.
Information available, shows that most of the documentation is genuine, having been obtained from corrupt immigration officials and consular staff in other countries.
Further information obtained from various court cases shows the cost of those documents varies between 10,000 and US$80,000.
There are no real statistics regarding the number who arrived here by air using false documentation, due to the clandestinely nature of the crime and the use of sophisticated document fraud. In the last year, only 89 people refused entry to Australia for presenting false documents.
From research done into reported and unreported case law, and a report done by the ABC shows that most documentation fraud originates in China, followed by India and Sri Lanka. This case law provides the most substantive information about the characteristics and scale.
Other statistics show that most of the people who use their real identity, arrive by air and stay illegally, originate in Europe and are here for economic benefit.
As to security assessments, due to the sophistication of such document fraud, we will never know.
In addition, with those who believe the entry by air is a problem, there is a difference in that there are no government funds expended on support or processing to the extent necessitated by those arrive unidentified by sea. They are self-supporting, and probably low users are many social services.
Interesting info Anon 1.
My main point is very small numbers of well-trained entrants who arrive by whatever means can be virtual 'sleepers' within communities. Whether arriving directly by air via forged documentation or via NZ, they can easily stay pretty inconspicuous if they have independent support means.
They could of course act whenever directed to interfere with crucial infrastructure to exert political influence. The greatest national security threat is thus from within no matter how many billions are spent on military capacity to deter any interference with Australia's littoral interests.
Post a Comment