tim josling <tej@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
All I am asking for is "Here is my proposed policy, and here is the evidence I have seriously thought through the consequences, including indirect consequences".
Not "It is obvious that accepting anyone who shows up is the RIGHT THING TO DO and therefore the consequences must be OK".
I don't think anybody seriously entertains the above. However, accepting refugees who arrive (subject to assessment of refugee status) is the correct response, because it's the only response that respects the rights of the refugees. One of the central tenets of human rights is that they aren't subject to utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses: if a person has a right, then it must be respected even if it's costly and inconvenient to do so. I think the same policy can be argued for on utilitarian grounds, since sending someone back into a dangerous situation in which they are at risk of torture, assassination etc., is worse than incurring the costs of resettlement, even if the latter are high. Thus a good policy has several elements: 1. Acceptance and settlement of refugees who arrive, by whatever means of transport. 2. Pursuit of international agreements to improve the resettlement prospects of refugees and the processing system so that people don't find it necessary to undertake dangerous journeys by boat to reach a country that will respect their rights as refugees.