Follow Topics

28 November 2012, 6.15am EST

Cognitive dissonance and sunk cost: the psychology of seeking asylum

With its revamped Pacific Solution, the Australian government has decided to make the choice to take a boat to Australia more horrendous in its implications, by increasing the likelihood of disasters at sea, and then punishing those who manage to survive the crossing. But nothing has been done on two…

S259kdqr-1353980827 — By the time asylum seekers get on boats, it’s often too late. EPA/Tubagus

But nothing has been done on two critical fronts – addressing the conditions that create refugees; and providing alternatives that break the incentive cycle promoted by the government and opposition, and facilitated by the people smugglers.

As the child of refugees who survived through the venal self-interest of people smugglers two generations ago, I am particularly aware of the contradictions involved.

The application of some cognitive theory and economic choice theory may help understand what is really going on; and why government and opposition are playing a doomed game they cannot win.

Cognitive dissonance and sunk cost

The concept of cognitive dissonance may be helpful in understanding the social psychology of asylum seekers who have entered the smuggler chain. This approach also throws light on the policy assumptions of government about the ways in which smuggler “business models” may be most effectively disrupted, thus interrupting the flow of asylum seekers to Australia.

Cognitive dissonance has been described as the “mental discomfort provoked by trying to believe two mutually contradictory propositions”. More strictly, it refers to the emotional investment people make in a particular belief, their tendency to try to line up belief and behaviour when the dissonance between them becomes salient. Somewhat counter-intuitively, beliefs will often adapt to justify behaviour, though interventions focused on the disjunction between behaviour and belief can “force” the process in the opposite direction.

In parallel to this cognitive state, there is what game and argumentation theory refers to as the “sunk-cost error”. This is the supposed irrationality of the observed tendency for people to stick with a behaviour even when it appears increasingly unlikely to produce the desired outcome or is very dangerous, and the original cost cannot be recovered no matter what their decision.

The psychological journey

Put this together in a simple narrative. A young man realises or is told by trusted others (family, senior community people) he is in mortal danger, so his family invests money in “buying” him an escape. Those who pick him up tell him he has no other option than to obey their instructions at every point.

His self-concept has been modified in a number of ways. He carries the responsibility for the positive outcome of his family’s investment which may be all they have. At every step, the smugglers “prove” they are trustworthy, thus reinforcing the self-concept of the individual as a survivor, an identity increasingly elaborated as that of an “asylum seeker” (though this may not be clarified until much later in the process).

He reaches the penultimate point in the voyage – Indonesia, probably – and his “objective” identity (in the form of papers) is removed or demonstrated to be no longer valid. His emotional investment in trusting the asylum seekers is huge, and every day his behaviour reinforces his new identity. He has no other trusted or credible sources of information. His heightened anxiety level will not allow him to modify his behaviour. In his mind, his survivor status now depends totally on the smuggler.

There are no accessible and testable competing sources of information that can reduce the anxiety through offering alternative pathways, other than those that would immediately “lose” the value of his family’s sunk investment.

The Australian government’s now even more corrupted Pacific Solution asks why he would not abandon the trip and apply to the UNHCR. Such a policy misses two features: the massive acquired anxiety resulting from months of managing cognitive dissonance; and the fact people will not acknowledge that their investment of money and time is a sunk cost.

Psychological interventions

So how can we help change asylum seeker behaviour?

First, we must accept that sunk cost is a factor which smugglers depend on for power over, and retention of, their clients. Recognition that the cost is lost will be a necessary but insufficient part of any intervention strategy.

Asylum seekers have a massive commitment to the belief that the sunk cost is not lost. The more the government messes with its policy, the clearer the balance skews towards the side adopted by the asylum seeker rather than that desired by the government.

A variety of interventions can address the cognitive dissonance problem. These include countering information from a credible source; providing a rational argument for behavioural change based on desired outcomes; and tapping the moral values of the asylum seekers. (Interestingly, The same dynamics could work on changing Australian attitudes towards asylum seekers).

The intervention is most useful where individuals are addressed in groups, when there is widely available accurate and positive information, and where they are induced to proselytise the desired changes to their peers.

This kind of approach can change behaviour remarkably quickly. False information that reinforces anxieties can have the opposite effect. However the effectiveness of the intervention (which is aimed at limiting the predisposition of asylum seekers to trust smugglers by getting onto unsafe boats) requires real changes so that the information provided is credible and accurate, sufficient to overcome the sunk cost factor.

What next?

There are three real changes that could be made that would help break the psychological cycle.

First, asylum seekers must be able to apply for refugee status while still in their home country, before they get tied up with people smugglers.

Second, a major Australian processing centre should be set up in Indonesia. If people fail this process, they will have little chance of any better outcome risking life and limb on the sea to arrive unlawfully in Australia. A small number will be tempted, but they will be paying premium rates and face almost guaranteed rejection and return.

Third, during waiting periods, intensive English programs, health checks and other identity building investment should be made available by government. Every effort should be made to ensure asylum seeking arrivals are in the best mental and physical shape to re-adjust to Australia, rather than ensuring they are in the worst shape we can produce.

A rational response

A debate that grapples with each element of the asylum seeking process is crucial.

The Houston panel went part of the way, but left many fragments unresolved. The government and opposition have plans that will only intensify the catastrophe under way. The Greens have also avoided key questions.

Now is the time to systematically, rationally and with a “least worst outcome” mindset, move on these issues. Calm, humane, intelligent policy trumps panicked, inhumane, dumb reactions every time.

Articles also by This Author

2 April 2013 How the 457 scheme is changing Australian immigration

7 September 2012 Jim Spigelman and the ABC Charter: in defence of diversity?

7 August 2012 Licensing hate: the possible consequences of Abbott’s racial vilification changes

10 July 2012 New Migration Council to fight for a bigger Australia

4 April 2012 Back to the future – the war on drugs we never had to have

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

48 Comments sorted by

Marilyn Shepherd

pensioner

What disjointed crap. Asylum seekers don't need to be told by anyone they are in danger, I reckon it's a pretty fair bet that when the likes of the Taliban send you a night note you are pretty sure you are in danger so you go looking for transport.

The absurd notion many in this country have that there are gangs around preying on people to force them to seek asylum is so ridiculous surely you can't possibly believe it. It is a legal right to seek asylum, it is a legal right to pay who ever…
Read more

What disjointed crap. Asylum seekers don't need to be told by anyone they are in danger, I reckon it's a pretty fair bet that when the likes of the Taliban send you a night note you are pretty sure you are in danger so you go looking for transport.

The absurd notion many in this country have that there are gangs around preying on people to force them to seek asylum is so ridiculous surely you can't possibly believe it. It is a legal right to seek asylum, it is a legal right to pay who ever is around to do it.

Why do you make things so complicated with us doing weird solutions.

1. to be able to qualify as a refugee people have to be outside their own countries and too terrified to go home, if they can apply for exit visas in their own countries they are probably not in that much danger are they?
2. we cannot tell anyone which country they can leave or what transport they use.
3. why is the money any more sunk than paying Qantas? What a ridiculous thing to say.

Fair dinkum, why come up with this sort of rot to disguise the fact that we are breaking the law every day and our pollies just don't care.

They have not cut off the nation yet though, it is going to committee to report in February.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/unauthorised_maritime_arrivals/info.htm

6 months ago report
1. Andrew Jakubowicz
  
  Professor of Sociology and Codirector of Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre at University of Technology, Sydney
  
  In reply to Marilyn Shepherd
  
  Your frustration at the current situation exemplifies the problem I am addressing: unless you have a proposal that addresses the issue of deaths at sea, you are not moving the debate forward. Australia has a shared obligation with other countries for finding a safe solution to the need for refuge. That need as you know will increase in the next few years as NATO withdraws and the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates. Refugee status is of course only available if you are without other protection…
  Read more
  
  Your frustration at the current situation exemplifies the problem I am addressing: unless you have a proposal that addresses the issue of deaths at sea, you are not moving the debate forward. Australia has a shared obligation with other countries for finding a safe solution to the need for refuge. That need as you know will increase in the next few years as NATO withdraws and the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates. Refugee status is of course only available if you are without other protection outside your country of nationality; my argument is that Australia will cleary not intervene to provide an alternative to the smuggler route at origin; so it must do so as soon as possible along the way; or let the smugglers get people fairly safely to Indonesia and then provide a real alternative to the boat death channel. Your position seems to be if they can make it to Australia by sea (ie they're still alive) we should take them if they are proven to be refugees; my position is we should get them here without the danger of death at sea.
  
  6 months ago report
2. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to Marilyn Shepherd
  
  What do you propose Marilyn? An open border policy? Who pays for the cost of supporting these people? If you open the borders and increase the 'pull' factors, aren't you just encouraging more boats? More boats equals more drownings and I thought the idea was to stop people drowning?
  
  6 months ago report
3. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to Marilyn Shepherd
  
  Andrew, people sail the 7 seas every day of the year in their millions, why do you buy into the crap that being on the sea is more dangerous than anything else they face.
  
  There have been very few deaths at sea, while they pretend to care about the 900 or so who have drowned in the last 13 years they don't mention the 1 million or so dead in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands dead in Afghanistan, the tens of thousands slaughtered in Sri Lanka, the tens of thousands slaughtered in Syria and Libya…
  Read more
  
  Andrew, people sail the 7 seas every day of the year in their millions, why do you buy into the crap that being on the sea is more dangerous than anything else they face.
  
  There have been very few deaths at sea, while they pretend to care about the 900 or so who have drowned in the last 13 years they don't mention the 1 million or so dead in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands dead in Afghanistan, the tens of thousands slaughtered in Sri Lanka, the tens of thousands slaughtered in Syria and Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine and other places over the last 13 years or the 217 million kids who died of starvation.
  
  And there are no smugglers so there cannot be a smuggler route.
  
  The Sri Lankans simply sail themselves, then we have people from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Kuwait and other places, where is the common route?
  
  Under at least 6 treaties and protocols ratified by us it is quite legal to seek asylum and enter and leave other nations without being punished for doing so.
  
  This is the UNHCR blurb on the smuggling protocol which came about because Ruddock started jailing Indonesian fishing crews.
  
  Attorney General,
  You are breaking this treaty and trying to force other countries to criminalise refugees and their means of transport.
  
  That is not thing more and nothing less than a contribution to genocide of refugees.
  
  UNHCR Summary Position on the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
  1. UNHCR has followed with interest the recent adoption of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, including the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air ("Protocol against Smuggling") and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children ("Protocol against Trafficking"). The Office is pleased to be present at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Palermo, Sicily, from 12 to 15 December 2000.
  2. UNHCR shares the concerns raised by many States that criminal and organized smuggling of migrants, on a large scale, may lead to the misuse of national asylum or immigration procedures. However, given an increasing number of obstacles to access safety, asylum-seekers are often compelled to resort to smugglers. UNHCR is also aware of cases of trafficked persons, particularly women and children, who may, under exceptional circumstances, be in need of international protection. The Office therefore participated in the preparatory work of the Ad Hoc Committee in Vienna, supporting its efforts to elaborate international instruments which would enable governments to combat smuggling and trafficking of persons, whilst upholding their international protection responsibilities towards refugees.
  3. The Protocol against Smuggling, for instance, contains a number of provisions which may impact on smuggled asylum-seekers. The authorization to intercept vessels on the high seas, the obligation to strengthen border controls and to adopt sanctions for commercial carriers, or the commitment to accept the return of smuggled migrants may indeed affect those who seek international protection. A number of comparable provisions of the Protocol against Trafficking may have a similar effect.
  4. During the sessions of the Ad-Hoc Committee, UNHCR therefore emphasized the need to reconcile measures to combat the smuggling of migrants and the trafficking of persons with existing obligations under international refugee law. The Office welcomes the adoption of a saving clause in both Protocols, designed to safeguard the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, in particular in relation to the principle of non-refoulement.
  5. In addition, UNHCR appreciates the adoption of provisions for the protection of smuggled migrants, such as the obligation of States Parties to take appropriate measures to afford smuggled migrants protection against violence and to take into account the special needs of women and children. The Protocol against Smuggling is also clear in that it does not aim at punishing persons for the mere fact of having been smuggled or at penalizing organizations which assist such persons for purely humanitarian reasons. Indonesian fishermen do not deserve to be charged or jailed.
  6. In conclusion, UNHCR hopes that States Parties will respect the international legal framework set out by both Protocols through the adoption of similar safeguards in all bilateral or regional agreements or operational arrangements implementing or enhancing the provisions of these Protocols.
  11 December 2000
  
  So without wishing to be rude how about you leave the psycho babble for someone who might care, because refugees fleeing the taliban most certainly don't.
  
  6 months ago report
4. William Bruce
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Marilyn Shepherd
  
  Pt2
  Prof AJ says
  "my position is we should get them here without the danger of death at sea."
  
  Why should we be "responsible" for people that risk their lives in foreign lands (where they were safe!) and get killed?
  
  Do you think we ought have Cops or the Military posed at The Gap at Watsons Bay 24/7?
  
  6 months ago report
William Bruce

logged in via Facebook

Seems as with so-called "terrorism" we are dealing with the symptoms and not the cause.
Prof. Andrew Jakubowicz notes. "nothing has been done on two critical fronts – addressing the conditions that create refugees; and providing alternatives that break the incentive cycle".
It follows we need to stop the "political meddling" and strife in these peoples home countries....and STOP the facilitating of Wars with arms trade & resources trade and other profiteers.
It is obscene how the wealthiest people…
Read more

Seems as with so-called "terrorism" we are dealing with the symptoms and not the cause.
Prof. Andrew Jakubowicz notes. "nothing has been done on two critical fronts – addressing the conditions that create refugees; and providing alternatives that break the incentive cycle".
It follows we need to stop the "political meddling" and strife in these peoples home countries....and STOP the facilitating of Wars with arms trade & resources trade and other profiteers.
It is obscene how the wealthiest people in the world grab the lions share of the wealth from the most UTTERLY poor on the earth....and how it is done when it’s via war & corruption is beyond my belief.
What the hell has the World Bank done with our trillions of dollars? Where is the value for this money....if it is not perhaps, in the pockets of those who have "deals" done with "military dictatorships" et al which has not facilitated the intended development?
Re Prof AJ second point ...APART from political strife there is still plenty of financial and other incentives for about 2 Billion people to come to Oz....How many people do we "want" here....I say not too many unless we have full employment and we don't. BIG Business & BIG GOVT wants all they can get....(like the last 150yrs) , but, go and look at the youth outside the dole office who well might NEVER really work in their whole lives.
Of course we need to give refuge to genuine refugees BUT NOT ALL and certainly not Citizenship...and that is what many are coming. The proof of this is due to the fact many had refuge long before coming to Oz in transit Countries.

6 months ago report
1. William Bruce
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to William Bruce
  
  Prof AJ says
  "my position is we should get them here without the danger of death at sea."
  
  Well tell us how many do you thing should we should "get here"....200 million? 500 million? 1 Billion people?
  And what do they do here? Can they then bring 20 relatives? What status will they have? Can they jump cue for Citizenship? Must they go home if no longer in danger?
  
  6 months ago report
Neil James

Executive Director, Australia Defence Association

As the relevant public-interest watchdog organisation for strategic security issues the Australia Defence Association has long argued that most discussion on asylum seeking and refugee policy has concentrated on the symptoms of the problem and not its causes.

Our comprehensive discussion paper tackling these complex issues can be found at http://www.ada.asn.au/publications/ada-discussion-papers/asylum-and-refugee-policy.html

Asylum and refugee issues are first and foremost a matter of strategic…
Read more

As the relevant public-interest watchdog organisation for strategic security issues the Australia Defence Association has long argued that most discussion on asylum seeking and refugee policy has concentrated on the symptoms of the problem and not its causes.

Our comprehensive discussion paper tackling these complex issues can be found at http://www.ada.asn.au/publications/ada-discussion-papers/asylum-and-refugee-policy.html

Asylum and refugee issues are first and foremost a matter of strategic policy because they are just one part of our broader and longer-term strategic relationships with neighbouring countries.

Such issues are also primarily influenced by Australia's geo-political situation as:

- the only real signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention in our near, wider and broader regions (for example, only one other country between here and Greece is a genuine signatory);
- the world's only island-continent;
- a first-world democracy with an economic and cultural history of welcomng mass immigration (and offering permanent residence and then citizenship); and
- a very good record as an international citizen..

But instead of acknowledging this, the vast bulk of public (and party-political) argument on asylum and refugee matters has long tended to consider them as wholly or mainly a domestic policy matter.

Argument thus continually revolves around the recurrent symptoms of Australia’s dilemma, rather than seriously examine and fix its actual strategic, legal and moral causes.

This narrow focus on the domestic symptoms, not the strategic causes or cures, is both ineffective and immoral.

6 months ago report
Sean Lamb

Science Denier

"First, asylum seekers must be able to apply for refugee status while still in their home country, before they get tied up with people smugglers."
That seems to be losing sight of what an asylum seeker is supposed. Not to sound stupid, but an asylum seeker is seeking asylum, ie in immediate danger. Now there might be some situations where an asylum seeker can stay residing in the country they claim is persecuting them - eg children denied access to higher education on ethnic grounds, lack of freedom…
Read more

"First, asylum seekers must be able to apply for refugee status while still in their home country, before they get tied up with people smugglers."
That seems to be losing sight of what an asylum seeker is supposed. Not to sound stupid, but an asylum seeker is seeking asylum, ie in immediate danger. Now there might be some situations where an asylum seeker can stay residing in the country they claim is persecuting them - eg children denied access to higher education on ethnic grounds, lack of freedom to practice religion, sexuality seen as criminal, in general the paradigm is supposed to be continued residence in their home country represents an intolerable risk.

Your incentives could be achieved by trying to encourage refugee claims from country of first safe haven. This could be achieve on a country by country basis. For example with Sri Lankans we could enter into an agreement with India to return Sri Lankans to Tamil Nadu and only process claims for Sri Lankans from that location. A further advantage is that this also enables approaches to try and stabilize the situation in the country origin and facilitate repatriation.

After all, if the situation really is intolerable, shouldn't the first and most goal be to ameliorate the condition of everybody, rather than just provide succor to the small minority who can afford the services of people smugglers

6 months ago report
Daniel Boase-Jelinek

logged in via Facebook

Thanks Andrew for providing this insight into the psychological journey of the asylum seekers, and reading it I was prompted to think about the psychological journey that the Australian community has been on ever since 'boat people' began to arrive on our shores.
It seems that we will never reach a humane and sustainable outcome until we explore both of these journeys further to understand why Australians are so fearful of asylum seekers and why our responses to their needs are becoming ever more damaging to them and to ourselves.

6 months ago report
1. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Daniel Boase-Jelinek
  
  Good points, Daniel. Perhaps it is the passage of time that helps to settle this paranoia.
  
  Let's look at history: WWII resulted in a large number of migrants, legitimately fearing for their lives and the future of their families, to falsify their identities, cross borders illegally and set up new lives in Australia. Many of these "reffos" were not welcomed at the time, but a number of these refugees, and their subsequent offspring, ahve become admired members of our society.
  
  It might help the current situation if more of these ex-refugees came out to explain their situations and motivations at the time, and how they felt forced to flee by whatever means available.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to Daniel Boase-Jelinek
  
  It's not hard. The law is clear that generally signatory states assess the claims of those seeking asylum, they uphold their human rights as laid out in the refugee convention.
  
  If Australia just stopped jailing them and upheld the law as we largely do for those who fly here and stopped this incessant whinge that it is difficult and complicated we would all be better off.
  
  6 months ago report
3. William Bruce
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Daniel Boase-Jelinek
  
  Daniel says
  "It seems that we will never reach a humane and sustainable outcome until we explore both of these journeys further to understand why Australians are so fearful of asylum seekers and why our responses to their needs are becoming ever more damaging to them and to ourselves."
  
  I think, no, we will never reach a humane and sustainable outcome until we attain POLITICAL stability & justice & development in their home countries.
  
  6 months ago report
4. James Bush
  
  primary teacher
  
  In reply to Daniel Boase-Jelinek
  
  Totally agree with Andrew Jak.
  We need to address the deaths at sea and the causes behind them. Australia must clearly state that we will not allow anybody to stay here who hasn't been authorised through the appropriate UN refugee channels.
  We should not offer a temptation that may result in death but instead guarantee that every single person arriving by boat will be sent back to their port of origin. The deaths at sea will then reduce drastically which is what we all want.
  
  6 months ago report
Felix MacNeill

Environmental Manager

Thanks for a useful article Andrew.

I was broadly under the impression that the Greens' policies, while not perfect, were significantly less bad than the 'alternatives' offered by Labor and Coalition. You say that the Greens have also avoided key questions. I'd be interested in an elaboration on this point and your thoughts on how the current policy might be improved.

6 months ago report
1. Neil James
  
  Executive Director, Australia Defence Association
  
  In reply to Felix MacNeill
  
  Felix,
  
  Your question underlies a key problem with public debate on this issue - the proclivity to look at the issues from only (or primarily) party-political viewpoints. This reinforces the tendency to discuss symptoms, not causes and solutions, and the blind alley of only looking at it as only a domestic policy issue.
  
  All the political parties are both right and wrong on particular aspects of the overall issue. This occurs because they seek domestic electoral advantage in advocating a particular…
  Read more
  
  Felix,
  
  Your question underlies a key problem with public debate on this issue - the proclivity to look at the issues from only (or primarily) party-political viewpoints. This reinforces the tendency to discuss symptoms, not causes and solutions, and the blind alley of only looking at it as only a domestic policy issue.
  
  All the political parties are both right and wrong on particular aspects of the overall issue. This occurs because they seek domestic electoral advantage in advocating a particular line of argument just as much as it derives from the real or ostensible moral or other grounds espoused.
  
  They all also choose not to address certain issues - as do many of the refugee advocacy groups - that are inconvenient to their argument or general ideological line.
  
  The Greens are no different to the Coalition or Labor in this regard.
  
  See the ADA discussion paper for numerous examples where much public "debate" avoids or obfuscates the nub of the asylum seeking issue.
  
  http://www.ada.asn.au/publications/ada-discussion-papers/asylum-and-refugee-policy.html
  
  6 months ago report
2. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Felix MacNeill
  
  Neil, I'm going to have to reply to myself to reply to you...
  
  I'll check out that article you recommend - thanks.
  
  But I find the implication in your first paragraph simplistic. Policy has to be created and set by government. Government has to be formed by political parties (at least at this stage!). The only way even the best informed and most responsible voters can choose in terms of any given issue which they consider important is to critically examine the policies of the parties on offer…
  Read more
  
  Neil, I'm going to have to reply to myself to reply to you...
  
  I'll check out that article you recommend - thanks.
  
  But I find the implication in your first paragraph simplistic. Policy has to be created and set by government. Government has to be formed by political parties (at least at this stage!). The only way even the best informed and most responsible voters can choose in terms of any given issue which they consider important is to critically examine the policies of the parties on offer.
  
  This doesn't mean one is looking at an issue primarily/only from a party political viewpoint. My question related precisely to the need for parties to develo better policies - given that I'm damned if I can think of any other practical way to achieve change.
  
  What troubles me is that we all engage in complaints about how gutless or populist our politicians are, yet far too few of us get actively involved and most of us react like everyone else to media reports. This means that politicians have no choice but to pay attention to electoral advantage. As a service man, you will well appreciate the pointlessness of simply commitrting suicide, no matter how good the cause.
  
  Right or wrong, the Greens have at least demonstrated that they are prepared to cop a caning from the worst of the popluist media in order to advance what they believe to be a moral argument. I don't see an ounce of courage from Labor at this stage (indeed a great deal of rapid running away) and I think the Coalition have grown so used to using refugees as a political stick to beat their opponents with that their sense of any morality around this issue is utterly atrophied.
  
  6 months ago report
3. Julian de Ross
  
  Company Director
  
  In reply to Neil James
  
  Hi Neil, I read pretty much all of your ADA link/policy. It seems to boil down to this "Establish Australian National Interest and put policy in place to make it work". Your paper unpacks just about every detail of the situation, a lot of type mate.. and I felt like I was reading John Pilger for a while until I reached the bit about some kind of solution.. (which Pilger never gives).
  
  Your gentle wording about 'strategic interest' can be decoded in terms of "national" interest. I would personally…
  Read more
  
  Hi Neil, I read pretty much all of your ADA link/policy. It seems to boil down to this "Establish Australian National Interest and put policy in place to make it work". Your paper unpacks just about every detail of the situation, a lot of type mate.. and I felt like I was reading John Pilger for a while until I reached the bit about some kind of solution.. (which Pilger never gives).
  
  Your gentle wording about 'strategic interest' can be decoded in terms of "national" interest. I would personally be happy for every man, woman,child, dog, cat, and flea from the main pacific Islands (Tonga Samoa Cook Islands) to come here permanently.. their total populations are negligible, but just wait.. jusssst wait till Marylin Shepherd sees a pot of gold at the end of the Bangladesh rainbow when we start hearing the shrill cries of "we are being submerged" aah.. we are now speaking about MILLIONS..and don't think Shepherd will not be at the front of the line yelling for open borders..she will! (along with her mates in the Socialist Alliance and Alternative)
  There's no point in soft peddling this, or of ignoring the future 'strategic' situation. Having been the recipient of grenades and semi auto gunfiire in the past.. it boils down to 'them or us'. And the ideology I adhere to is "us". Speaking about 'them/us'.. Marylin is the 'nice socialist cop'..the 'mean' one is the one who attacked me at Federation square for holding up a poster of an Aboriginal, a Maori, an Asian and a white bloke as an expression of "Diverse" Australia in the context of "No Sharia law"....that was on May 15th 2011.. on May 16th the federation of Islamic Councils claimed it was 'divisive' to claim Muslims wanted Sharia law for Australia. On May 17th, the same man, (Ikabel Patal) applied to Gov to implement "Sharia law". Let the facts speak.
  
  4 months ago report
Caroline Wright

Retired Nurse Academic and Researcher

We and many, many other countries pay millions of dollars to the UN. Therefore it is not our Government's duty to set up all these measures in Indonesia to support asylum seekers it is the UN duty.
What about those persons who live in abject poverty while waiting their turn to come to Australia? We cannot afford to take all asylum seekers we are too 'population poor' to be able to afford to accommodate the sheer numberrs wanting to come to our country. We cannot afford to provide housing for the homeless so I can understand why Australians are reticient to accept the sheer numbers we have at present.
Those that are accepted do not do themselves any favours when the Australian public become aware that 89% of asylum seekers are still on Social Service Benefits 5 years after being granted residency status in our country.
We may be a large country but much of our land mass is arid so our population is limited by this very fact.

6 months ago report
1. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to Caroline Wright
  
  Actually it is not the UNHCR that protects refugees, they don't have any state in which to protect refugees.
  
  It is states who protect refugees, 148 of them in fact.
  
  Those who don't protect refugees are still supposed to uphold their basic human rights but most often don't which is why they move on.
  
  The stupidity of lazy Australian's never ceases to amaze me.
  
  And so what if 80% of refugees are still on social services after 5 years? You are talking about a few thousand people of the 650,000 unemployed so it's not like they make much of a difference.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to Caroline Wright
  
  http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/bowens-asylum-line-is-illegal-20121126-2a3p0.html
  
  WEll we should let people work instead of keeping them homeless.
  
  And really dear? The sheer numbers? Of a few thousand?
  
  You need to get a grip on reality.
  
  There are 5 million tourists, 200,000 permanent migrants, 65,000 family reunion migrants, 350,000 foreign students and 180,000 temporary workers every year and you whinge about a few thousand refugees?
  
  REally?
  
  Are you completely braindead dear, or just another lazy, ignorant racist.
  
  6 months ago report
3. Aleksandra Hadzelek
  
  Lecturer in Social and Political Change at University of Technology, Sydney
  
  In reply to Caroline Wright
  
  "Those that are accepted do not do themselves any favours when the Australian public become aware that 89% of asylum seekers are still on Social Service Benefits 5 years after being granted residency status in our country."
  
  Caroline, I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Andrew's article and the previous ones in this series try to bring to public attention the fact that we do not provide proper integration and training services to the refugees, and by keeping them in indefinite detention for years, we contribute to their later struggles in restarting their lives properly, becoming economically self-sufficient etc. I would say Australians don't do themselves any favours.
  
  6 months ago report
4. Julian de Ross
  
  Company Director
  
  In reply to Marilyn Shepherd
  
  They might not make much difference to the big picture in Australia (though the figures for all this are asonishingly high) but they might make a BIG difference to say.. "a migration agent"?
  
  4 months ago report
John Clark

Manager

The flaw in Andrew's article is the assumption that the prospective client "believes he is in mortal danger". While this may be the case in some particular instances, it is more than likely to be the justification used to gain residency in Australia. The smugglers care not the motivation, but rather, do they have the fare? The mortal danger no longer exists on departing the country of origin. Signing up in Indonesia to defeat the entry laws makes them illegal immigrants on arrival in Australia.

6 months ago report
1. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to John Clark
  
  It might in INdonesia but they can't get protection in Indonesia so they hide.
  
  Why do you feel such pleasure out of trying to pretend they are criminals.
  And we don't have any such thing as an illegal immigrant in Australia, we have not done since 1992
  
  6 months ago report
2. William Bruce
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to John Clark
  
  John Clark notes
  "The mortal danger no longer exists on departing the country of origin. Signing up in Indonesia to defeat the entry laws makes them illegal immigrants on arrival in Australia"
  
  Seems clear it is really all about Immigration cue jumping AND as a hi wage Country we do not have the Industry or prospective industry for many more people....Is it not also really about more "consumers" & "taxpayers"? How will that help Oz in the long run?...
  
  We need to IMMEDIATELY and genuinely help these people get stable & progressive Govts. and DEVELOP in their OWN Countries (of ANY colour for now )....this is the ONLY way to fix the the problem.
  
  I also believe the World Bank & IMF have been a failure (if not a RORT) and they must be looked at VERY closely to see where the "development" money has gone!
  
  6 months ago report
3. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to John Clark
  
  And how William Bruce do you propose that Australia make the world safe.
  
  Jesus wept, I don't believe the crude racist lunacy of some here.
  
  6 months ago report
4. David Donaldson
  
  adult educator
  
  In reply to John Clark
  
  Well, I was talking today to a hard working lady. She came from El Salvador a while back. She remembers clearly the sound and effect of missiles. That was indeed mortal danger.
  
  6 months ago report
5. Aleksandra Hadzelek
  
  Lecturer in Social and Political Change at University of Technology, Sydney
  
  In reply to John Clark
  
  Very interesting wording, John. Since when have we started calling refugees 'clients'? So this is what they are to you, aren't they?
  
  And we're not discussing the smugglers here, by the way. Of course they only care about making profit. But often in the Australian public opinion we put smugglers and refugees in the same basket, effectively criminalising refugees, by creating a simplified equation that if refugees used smugglers to come to Australia, then they must be bad people and we should protect…
  Read more
  
  Very interesting wording, John. Since when have we started calling refugees 'clients'? So this is what they are to you, aren't they?
  
  And we're not discussing the smugglers here, by the way. Of course they only care about making profit. But often in the Australian public opinion we put smugglers and refugees in the same basket, effectively criminalising refugees, by creating a simplified equation that if refugees used smugglers to come to Australia, then they must be bad people and we should protect the country from them.
  
  And, you say, even if they were legitimately fleeing from mortal danger in their home country, by crossing the border to the nearest neighboring country they free themselves from mortal danger and therefore cease to be refugees? Become opportunity seekers and try to sneak to Australia to gain residency? Well, imagine then that something sinister happens in Australia (I know it's unconceivable right now but you never know, the winds of history are unpredictable and one day all of us comfortable middle class Australians could find ourselves fleeing for our lives) - we go to Indonesia first, of course, it's the closest, and then what? You're saying we couldn't hope for and aspire to a future in the US, UK, Canada etc., because in Indonesia we would be free of mortal danger???
  
  6 months ago report
6. Julian de Ross
  
  Company Director
  
  In reply to Marilyn Shepherd
  
  For readers of Marylin. You must understand that Marylin has some kind of blockage in her cerebral cortex which prevents her from seeing anything bad about millions of hapless people coming to Australia in the name of 'assylum'. In other places, Marylin has to be brought kicking and screaming to even face the question. She is(or was) also a migration agent.
  The issue here is very simple. "Where to draw the line" between compassion and lunacy. John S. Mill expressed this issue on the subject…
  Read more
  
  For readers of Marylin. You must understand that Marylin has some kind of blockage in her cerebral cortex which prevents her from seeing anything bad about millions of hapless people coming to Australia in the name of 'assylum'. In other places, Marylin has to be brought kicking and screaming to even face the question. She is(or was) also a migration agent.
  The issue here is very simple. "Where to draw the line" between compassion and lunacy. John S. Mill expressed this issue on the subject of absolute authority and absolute freedom as the 'chief passtime of mankind". He also strove to produce a rational foundation for morality/ethics in the form of the 'no harm' principle. Marylin only see's the immediate 'harm' to those who have embarked on a course of harming themselves, but she does not see that this harm is self imposed and even Mill would baulk at trying to stop that kind of harm which is self inflicted. We must then consider the potential harm to Australia if reasonable limits are not imposed on the numbers and types who come here.
  The UN convention has numerous examples and provisions which relate to public order and national security. The point where a nation decides "enough is enough" is a sovereign decision arrived at by a democratic process and is entirely legitimate within their sovereignty and the Convention.
  But to Marylin, anyone disagreeing with her extemist posture is a 'racist'...but such shallow ideological taunts fall on deaf ears for the intelligently informed.
  Sorry Marylin, 'crude racist lunacy' is better applied to you, without the word "racist" included.
  
  4 months ago report
7. Julian de Ross
  
  Company Director
  
  In reply to William Bruce
  
  William... you expose your presuppositions with the words "stable and progressive" which is really uncomfortably close to ideological colonialism. "progressive" is about 15 months pregnant with the usual lefty agenda, and I'm afraid trying to apply that to a place like Afghanistan is like trying to force a very big square peg into a small round hole.
  You seem to be ignoring the issue of culture and religion, not to mention 'tribe'. Having lived in (and being married to) a tribal situation, I can…
  Read more
  
  William... you expose your presuppositions with the words "stable and progressive" which is really uncomfortably close to ideological colonialism. "progressive" is about 15 months pregnant with the usual lefty agenda, and I'm afraid trying to apply that to a place like Afghanistan is like trying to force a very big square peg into a small round hole.
  You seem to be ignoring the issue of culture and religion, not to mention 'tribe'. Having lived in (and being married to) a tribal situation, I can speak with a degree of confidence and experience.
  I agree about the 'stable' but not the 'progressive'..... and the sad fact of history is this.. "stable" and "tribal" just don't go anywhere except down the crapper unless there is a bigger power in charge which is not any one of those tribes. The next challenge is to convince those tribes that you (the great overseer) are acting equally in the interests of all tribes. (an impossibility by itself but exacerbated by agitators) So the answer is in fact.. 'benevolent and just' colonialism without exploitation. This can (and has) occured in history, and I point you to the white Rajahs of Sarawak as an example. (Fascinating story) ie..the Brook dynasty. It was the 'white' Brooks who prevented the British Crown colonial interests from exploiting Sarawak. This changed with the formation of Malaysia, and now it's the Ethnic/Muslim Malays who are doing the exploiting. They are in bed with the rich chinese and a considerable number of (now) rich indigenous leaders who live very very VERY well due to benefits of logging licences etc.. (I've been to one of their mc mansions.. mind blowing)
  Ultimately mate..the problem is...to quote General Douglas MacArthur "theological" You highlight other problems (Devolopment money etc) but don't offer any real solution .. to me the problem is the human heart.. I've been around long enough now to know that absolute power does corrupt... and very rare is the exception to this rule. ('you' are one of course-smile) So, back to the problem of Australia's posture.. "make the borders tighter than a fishes rear end" and to hell with the critics. We will never convince people if its push or pull...because they will put forward that side of the coin which fits their political affiliation. We can't, and the UN can't solve the problems of every trouble spot in the world... good grief.. just read up the history of any place... it's there in blood and bodies massacres and mayhem. I don't know of ONE status quo which did not become as such without the virtual destruction of the nearest rival. Just look at the wars of Scotland and England etc...
  
  4 months ago report
8. Julian de Ross
  
  Company Director
  
  In reply to Marilyn Shepherd
  
  Forget whether they are crimmo's or not Marylin.. just close the borders and they'll get the message pretty quick.
  -Turn boats back. (warning shots included)
  -Send people back
  -Punish those who return again
  
  They would have the same 'mercy' to us if we tried to swarm into their villages.
  
  4 months ago report
9. Julian de Ross
  
  Company Director
  
  In reply to John Clark
  
  "believes he is in mortal danger". While this may be the case in some particular instances, it is more than likely to be the justification used to gain residency in Australia. (John Clark)
  
  John....I'd put it stronger than that. They will have been schooled well in how our system works, (or better put..does not work) and they will tailor their stories to suit the loopholes and the people like Marylin Shepherd and others who are part of the 'industry'.
  The Green extremists are only supporting…
  Read more
  
  "believes he is in mortal danger". While this may be the case in some particular instances, it is more than likely to be the justification used to gain residency in Australia. (John Clark)
  
  John....I'd put it stronger than that. They will have been schooled well in how our system works, (or better put..does not work) and they will tailor their stories to suit the loopholes and the people like Marylin Shepherd and others who are part of the 'industry'.
  The Green extremists are only supporting them for sordid political reasons, and their compassion extends to the next election in a marginal seat.
  
  We need to establish our National Interest and being swamped or swarmed by legions of country shoppers is not in our interests either social or political. The cognitive dissonance Jakubowicz refers to will only be the experience of those who knowingly try to come here, until they get the message.
  Public order was infringed when the Sinhalese and Tamils were battling it out on the streets of Melbourne, that alone disqualified them. We don't need other peoples petty wars brought here.
  Trying to blame 'colonialism' for that problem (some other contributor) doesn't hold as the Tamils can jump on a boat back to 'Tamil Nadu' in India from where they were brought by the Brits. Home sweet Home.. same language, same culture and definitely lots of rellies.. but ooops...aww..no dole. Hmm..maybe 'that' is why they prefer Australia? It's country shopping plain and simple.. and no amount of whining shrieking or ranting by Marylin will change that. (it might impact her business model though?)
  
  4 months ago report
Peter Hindrup

consultant

The place to start would be to prevent the destruction/plundering of the various countries from which these refugees come. Australia gleefully takes part in the destruction, and then whinges about ameliorating slightly the damage it has helped to cause.

These 'poor' countries from which most of the refugees come were not poor prior to colonisation, or invasion. With the exception of Australia, which had no apparent wealth, I know of no country that was colonised which did not have abundant…
Read more

The place to start would be to prevent the destruction/plundering of the various countries from which these refugees come. Australia gleefully takes part in the destruction, and then whinges about ameliorating slightly the damage it has helped to cause.

These 'poor' countries from which most of the refugees come were not poor prior to colonisation, or invasion. With the exception of Australia, which had no apparent wealth, I know of no country that was colonised which did not have abundant and obvious wealth.

Conversely the 'rich' countries, the western wealthy anyway, became that way because of the countries that they occupied and plundered.

It amuses me to hear 'white' Australians berating the refugees, vehemently denying asylum seeker the right to come to 'our" country! I like to ask them when they, or their ancestors stepped of the boat.

As Howard's 'we will decide who comes to this country' shows little appreciation of history. The relative few refugees today, will be dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands coming as climate change tears the world apart.

These people will be the survivors, the ones who have escaped the horrors. How then does anybody suggest that they be prevented coming? By threatening to kill them?

The ordered world of the 'white' who grew up under the British Empire, and subsequently the US, has long passed. The assumptions of privilege and superiority are outmoded. We ought to hope that the up coming peoples are not as brutal, as callous and greedy as were we.,

6 months ago report
1. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to Peter Hindrup
  
  Spot on, it's racism pure and simple. The problem today is that both major party leaders are racist bigots from Britain.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Julian de Ross
  
  Company Director
  
  In reply to Peter Hindrup
  
  Peter..remarkable grasp of the historically obvious. And might I ask..to which' higher power do you appeal for your moral judgement on said "colonization"? Colonization can rightly be condemned and applauded, it depends on where and who was running the show. Clearly based on the evidence of Post colonial India, the bloodbath which followed the 'peaceful' protest of Ghandi, was evidence that the only thing holding the Muslims/Hindu's back was the one NON Hindu/Muslim power which gave a sense of…
  Read more
  
  Peter..remarkable grasp of the historically obvious. And might I ask..to which' higher power do you appeal for your moral judgement on said "colonization"? Colonization can rightly be condemned and applauded, it depends on where and who was running the show. Clearly based on the evidence of Post colonial India, the bloodbath which followed the 'peaceful' protest of Ghandi, was evidence that the only thing holding the Muslims/Hindu's back was the one NON Hindu/Muslim power which gave a sense of order to the nation. You need only look at the 'colonization' and invasions of the Indian princes over other wanna be princes/kings/moguls etc over the past 500 years to see this. (ignorance or bigotry is no excuse for not knowing these facts as of..."now")
  There was no universally agreed convention (which itself is relative to the prevailing power balance) by all nations as to what is morally right/wrong, and in the 1700s, there was not even a syllable of the 'Rights of the Man and of the Citizen' from 1790 ish in France. That revolution did not give rights to people as expected, it gave them the guillotine, and forced conformity (French working class dress) and believe it or not (or..believe Prof George Mosse from Wisconsin University) they also made masturbation a capital offense.
  Resources? aah.. that's been the stuff of life since Abraham and Lot found insufficient pasture in the Jordan valley.. don't get on your high horse and suddenly assume that 'you' have access to a higher morality, and puh-lease don't waste our time with pious sentiments about 'moral sense' which is a philosophically disputable concept at best. Seems like you are a humanist.. well.. we can fix you in due course.
  
  4 months ago report
Kasper Janssen

logged in via Facebook

Public debate and awareness is the only way to change Australian policy on this issue. We have the same problem with asylum seekers from Africa in Europe. Don't look away, look at this: http://vimeo.com/12037555 (trailer Deep Blue See)

6 months ago report
Emma Anderson

Artist and Science Junkie

Some responses are better in pictures

http://imageupper.com/i/?S0300010090011K13541920872207745

6 months ago report
gary hudson

retired engineer

Surely there is sufficient information available to Government to decide whether humans in a particular region of a particular country should be offered refugee status. This is the decision point for setting national policy. Recently, it has become obvious to our bureaucrats and pollies that many assylum seekers are from Sri Lanka.
Obviously, not a coutryor region suffering civil unrest to the extent of many other countries or regions.
How politically incorrect would it be to set and announce policy…
Read more

Surely there is sufficient information available to Government to decide whether humans in a particular region of a particular country should be offered refugee status. This is the decision point for setting national policy. Recently, it has become obvious to our bureaucrats and pollies that many assylum seekers are from Sri Lanka.
Obviously, not a coutryor region suffering civil unrest to the extent of many other countries or regions.
How politically incorrect would it be to set and announce policy that;
Assylum seekers from X only would be considered and that we would accept Y number?.
Just imagine the outcry from human rights groups. An alternative is to announce that any number Y from any country or region X can come to Australia under refugee status.
Meanwhile, announce to all Australians that support will no longer be provided for the disabled, aged, ill and any others genuinely entitled to support by taxpayers.
The greater the global population the more strained the resources availbale

6 months ago report
Roger Tonkin

(Retired) University Lecturer in Econometrics

Professsor Jakubowicz,

In the first sentence of your article you state that the Australian government, as part of its revamped Pacific Solution, has increased the likelihood of disasters at sea. How has it done this? The intended purpose of the
revamped Pacific Solution, as proposed by the Houston Expert Panel, is to minimise, or preferably end, the deaths of asylum seekers at sea.

6 months ago report
1. David Donaldson
  
  adult educator
  
  In reply to Roger Tonkin
  
  I think that AJ was showing how the Australian govt's attempts at frightening potential boat travellers may have, psychologically and sociologically, the opposite effect to what the govt intends. If the govt's intention is to reduce deaths at sea, then it follows, on AJ's reasoning, that deaths would increase.
  Both AJ's article and the conclusion on increasing deaths do seem to me to have validity. AJ is trying to explain to us 'why they are still coming' in spite of what we do to stop them. That is an important question which deserves serious consideration.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Roger Tonkin
  
  (Retired) University Lecturer in Econometrics
  
  In reply to Roger Tonkin
  
  David Donaldson,
  
  In his first sentence, Professor Jakubowicz did not raise the prospect of boat travellers being frightened psychologically and sociologically. He referred, very specifically, to a government decision to deliberately increase the likelihood of disasters at sea. If he meant something else, he should have worded that first sentence differently. Verbal dissonance in the first sentence is not a good way to start.
  
  6 months ago report
John Clark

Manager

Roger,

Sadly, intentions do not always achieve the desired outcome. The Pacific Solution is a desperate measure, but not working. As a result, more people will
drown.

6 months ago report
1. Roger Tonkin
  
  (Retired) University Lecturer in Econometrics
  
  In reply to John Clark
  
  John Clark,
  
  The Australian government did not decide to increase the likelihood of disasters at sea. By implementing the Houston Expert Panel proposals, the government made a deliberate decision to discourage asylum seekers from getting on unseaworthy boats provided by people smugglers.
  
  6 months ago report
John Clark

Manager

From time to time it is suggested that arrivals by boat are less significant than asylum seekers who come by plane. I am puzzled by this reference. how can this happen? Some contributor may explain to me.

6 months ago report
1. David Donaldson
  
  adult educator
  
  In reply to John Clark
  
  What I have noticed is not what John Clark says. I have noticed people saying that arrivals by plane are AS important as by boat, so if a fuss is to be make about boat arrivals, then a fuss should also be made about Plane arrivals.
  
  6 months ago report
Caroline Wright

logged in via Facebook

For anyone who thinks that it is just a few thousand and that it nothing to worry about, just think about this:
The latest two illegal boats to have arrived in Australia, brings the total number of illegal arrivals to more than 30,000 people under the Rudd/Gillard government.

This is more illegal arrivals than the entire populations of centres like Warrnambool (29,286), the Blue Mountains (29,770), Albany (26,644). Mount Gambier (25,200), Alice Springs (24,210) Devonport (22,770) or Mount Isa…
Read more

For anyone who thinks that it is just a few thousand and that it nothing to worry about, just think about this:
The latest two illegal boats to have arrived in Australia, brings the total number of illegal arrivals to more than 30,000 people under the Rudd/Gillard government.

This is more illegal arrivals than the entire populations of centres like Warrnambool (29,286), the Blue Mountains (29,770), Albany (26,644). Mount Gambier (25,200), Alice Springs (24,210) Devonport (22,770) or Mount Isa (20,569).

More than half of these illegal arrivals have occurred during this year alone and Labor’s failure on our borders is worsening by the month, with an average of 2,000 now turning up every month.

The 30,000 people that have arrived illegally by boat under Labor compares to less than 300 during the last six years of the Howard government. That’s more than a one hundred fold increase.
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2012/11/i-got-an-e-mail-last-night-its-a-worry.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MenziesHouse+%28Menzies+House%29
and that was on 20th November and more have arrived since then. And if this continues to happen every year and the 89% remaining on socail welfare 5 years after arrival continues the number are quite staggering.

It is my understanding that a few years ago more people arrived by plane and overstayed their visas but that is no linger the case. I will attempt to find the reference and will get back here when I do.

6 months ago report
1. David Donaldson
  
  adult educator
  
  In reply to Caroline Wright
  
  Caroline's new contribution seems intended to fan adversarial controversy in the political field, which she has a right to do in say a letters page in a newspaper.
  Jacubov's article was not about political stances, it was about the reasons for the behavior that we can see happening i.e. numbers of boat arrivals in spite of dangers and threats.
  This is a discussion about psychology and sociology, in which Jacubov is an expert. He has special knowledge about what makes people behave in sometimes puzzling ways. It is irrelevant whose is the fault among Australian politicians. What matters is the reasons for these forms of migration. Until we understand those reasons, our remedies are bound to be misdirected.
  
  6 months ago report

Cognitive dissonance and sunk cost

The psychological journey

Psychological interventions

What next?

A rational response

Articles also by This Author

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter