Musings on Migration

From the ABC:

Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has welcomed yesterday's High Court ruling that makes it easier for the Federal Government to return temporary protection visa (TPV) holders to their countries of origin.

The High Court decided that the Government is under no obligation to let people on TPVs remain in Australia once the situation in their home country has improved.

Pete's Points:

I was a refugee (albeit some 50 years ago).

My parents feared for their lives and ran with me in tow.

I can understand what it is like to run from a country when you are in fear of your life.

Equally, I understand what it is like to apply for migration to a country as a refugee and to be faced with rejection on grounds that appear meaningless at the time.

In the case of my family, the place of birth of my father enabled him to gain approval from the USA to migrate there and settle as a refugee, but the country of my birth and that of my mother precluded us from the same privilege. Why? Our circumstances were the same, at least from our perspective.

The country concerned had a policy of permitting only a certain number of people who were born in different countries to migrate and because of the large numbers involved my mother and I missed out on their quota system.

Unfair? Possibly from some perspectives.

The reality is that each country must have the right to decide its own immigration policies regardless of whether potential applicants for residence welcome that policy or not.

It was of course possible for my father to have migrated to the USA and then when he had settled there to send for my mother and myself some time down the track. He chose a different option. He decided not to split the family and risk something happening to us in a refugee camp.

When Australia offered to take us all in we migrated here. A then strange land where we did not know the language or the culture and which was a world away from where we expected to end up.

Personally I think my dad made a great decision, if not for himself, then certainly for his family.

I can understand why it is that the government has fought so hard to ensure that people to whom they give TEMPORARY protection can be returned to their home countries when the conditions there change for the better and it is felt that they are no longer likely to suffer harm.

If and when Australia affords someone the opportunity to migrate to this country as a refugee and were then to withdraw their privilege to settle here, I would be up in arms alog side the Greens and the Democrats.

However when it is made clear to someone that he or she is being given TEMPORARY protection only and there is no intention at any time to admit them to Australia under any other condition then the individual concerned has to make a choice, just like my father had to make a choice, about what to do.

Once the choice is made there are consequences that follow the choice, one of these being, in the case of a temporary residence visa, that if the country from which you have fled returns to a state where you no longer have to fear for your life you are returned there.

There are other choices for people out there when they are in danger. They need simply to be careful about the course of action that they choose. In the case of the people who were the subject of the case before the High Court they clearly did not choose the correct option for themselves.