Kon Karapanagiotidis: Why So Frightened?

I have had the que Jumper argument put to me by both politicians and by migrants in my very multi cutural community.
The argument runs as follows: there is a limited number of places for asylum seekers, every one who arrives illegaly takes the place of someone trying to escape a refugee camp somewhere.
Moraly how many do we accomodate everyone who is in need given there millions of desperate refugees world wide? . If we allow all those who come through people traffickers do we make their trade more lucrative ?
However generous we are their is a practical limit to the numbers we can accomodate.
It is the same for our population in general. there is a physical limit. The comfortable limit will have been well and truly passed before we reach the physical limit.

Very powerful speech on an important issue. Thanks Kon! And thanks to the Wheeler Centre for hosting it!

Gina, I think there are tough questions about how many and who, but what I take from this speech is the need to have non political conversation about this. Not the political hysteria that ends up with everyday people suggesting that they would shoot asylum seekers. The other thing I would suggest is that if we decide we need to help more people from refugee camps too, then we need to discuss our immigration intake - more refugees and less from developed nations? Maybe. But when do we get to have real conversations and real policy without the hoopla?

Missed it by that much.
An argument I would have liked to have heard. Where will Kon be speaking next or can I get a copy of speech?. Strength to you arm.

Thank you, Kon. You ask what it means to be Australian - for me , at present, it means as it did when the Tampa crisis arose, to be ashamed. Yes, I am speaking out, and especially encouraging my granddaughter, aged 8, to understand, and to be able to speak out too.

Thank you, Kon. You ask what it means to be Australian - for me , at present, it means as it did when the Tampa crisis arose, to be ashamed. Yes, I am speaking out, and especially encouraging my granddaughter, aged 8, to understand, and to be able to speak out too.

What are we afraid of? I think the fear stems from several things; one - we still have a history of being invaded or overrun by our near neighbours who outnumber us immensely, i.e. the so-called 'yellow peril' of yesteryear. Two - we are told to be afraid by our politicians who use dreadful rhetoric and spin, i.e. queue jumpers, illegals, product and add whatever they can to make us believe only they can 'fix' the 'problem'. Three - there is the age-old fear that our lifestyle will change if we have people who are 'different to us' come in any number. What does that mean anyway? We're all different, just look at a couple settling into a relationship, but the fear is based around people who look or act different. Well, it has been ever thus anyway, we change, even when the new people are 'like us', but any 'tribe' is stronger when it mixes with other tribes. Let's face it, though, even when the English migrate here (hopefully lawfully and not by overstaying their visas), they are different in many aspects. They might look and sound like us, they might have many similar values, but they are used to a different lifestyle culturally than us. We are different than our own ancestors who landed in the early fleets.

Should we fear any changes happening against our will? No. That would be an invading force, not a minority of refugees who are usually so grateful to be safe and welcomed they quickly settle in and usually give back more than they receive. We have a political system, a rule of law, an established way of doing things in terms of education, health, necessity, etc. The landscape might change culturally, not the natural one (other than what we already do by knocking down and putting up) but the man made one. If we don't like it, we can speak out about it, as we so often do, and the physical change might happen or it probably won't, but it will be an elected government or government appointed body who decides regardless of who or what the change is related to.

Of course there will be changes. Of course people resist and sometimes even fear change. But change will happen regardless of who comes here, or how many. Diversity has made us a strong, vibrant, independent, innovative and envied country. Which brings me to my fourth point, and perhaps the most pertinent one to deal with: we love our country to such an extent, value it and know it is about the best you can get across the board, that we think everyone naturally wants to come here. That isn't either logical or psychologically sound. Other people have the same connection to their country and culture as we do and in the main, would prefer to stay there if it was safe and free. They are fleeing persecution, war, death, torture, starvation, fear. Otherwise, they would stay put unless they were 'natural' emigrates.

I think the most valid argument Kon is making, is that we should question why we fear and then perhaps we can get at a truth that gives us and the persecuted a medium and happy balance of things.

As to the boat smugglers, well they might be trading in life and hope, as Kon said, but they only do it for a price. The way to put them out of business would be for the countries who 'warehouse' asylum seekers and the countries they aim for, Australia etc., doing everything possible to process them quickly and then transporting them.

Perhaps a regional processing centre would be better, but only if those approved can get here safely without paying to be snuck over on leaky boats.

I used to be one of those who asked "how many should we let in and who?" 20 million refugees in the world and our small little country, how many can we take? Then it occurred to me: We're happy for Australian businesses to spread throughout the world, many causing untold ecological and social damage; our military to invade, kill and maim in distant lands; and our government to blackmail vulnerable neighbours into handing over their resources. I can live with people believing that business is business and refugees are refugees, but as Kon points out, it's the sense of entitlement that goes along with it. It's the hypocrisy. We're happy with globablisation when it suits us, but when a trickle flows back our way, we jump up and down about border control and our right to choose "how many and who". We're so disconnected from what is really going on in the rest of the world, so spoilt. The irony is we can no longer cut ourselves off from the world like we used to, it doesn't work like it did in the 1900's - events of the last decade have clearly proven that. If there's 20 million refugees in the world, we need to deal with it, let's get to work, maybe we could base it on GDP per capita. If you do the numbers for the wealthy "minority world" it's actually not so bad. We might have to go without a television or a Grand Prix for a couple of years to pay for it, or maybe one of the rich 5% could donate his tax return - we'll work out something, we're an ingenious lot. And instead of letting poor countries such as Pakistan take the responsibility for looking after the majoriy of these people, we can at least do our bit and quit complaining about it.