After discussing last weeks a very brief introduction to the concept of internal and external security, and the value of an immigration and customs service, we will turn our attention to the dangers facing Australia through a completely open border policy.
The year was 1990, and Abdul Benbrika was demanding entrance into Australia as a political refugee from Algeria. Claiming that he was facing persecution in his home country, and would be killed if he returned, Benbrika entered Australia illegally and dodged multiple attempts to remove him for up to five years. Finally marrying an Australia, Benbrika secured a permanent VISA to Australia, moving here permanently.
Benbrika began to teach in both Melbourne and Sydney at local Mosques, including the Brunswick Mosque in Melbourne. His teaching and preaching became more and more radical against Australia, especially following September 11. In the years following September 11, Benbrika began to form a network of radical elements in both Sydney and Melbourne with the express purpose of “killing a lot of Australians” to punish the country for entering Iraq.
He and his loyal disciples identified a number of targets including the Melbourne city rail network, the Grand Final, or the then Prime Minister John Howard. His group attempted to acquire weapons, and built explosive devices which they detonated in a test run while with an undercover police officer. Benbrika had a volunteer in his group for a suicide attack, and he talked earnestly about the beheadings by Al Qaeda in Iraq of American forces, and he stated that his group needed to learn from this.
Benbrika and his group were arrested before the attacks could occur, and were sentenced for what amounted to a slap on the wrist, with Benbrika possibly walking after a 6 year sentence.
Reports have indicated that Benbrika has not been the only illegal immigrant to seek refuge in Australia, who turned out later to be a supporter of violent extremism. During the years leading up to September 11, there was an influx of individuals with militant ties who flooded to Australia to seek protection from the autocratic regimes in their country, including countries such as Egypt and Algeria. Many of these individuals were given asylum in Australia.
The issue that has arisen is that, while autocratic, many of these regimes have been, and continue to carry out a war against Islamic extremists. Fleeing this war, the extremists have found refuge in a more hospitable location – where the people and the government have had a history of welcoming those less fortunate.
The process of security vetting for refugees entering Australia requires security assessments by ASIO (The Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation). As Australia’s primarily internal security agency, ASIO will provide a ruling on a refugee’s security suitability to enter Australia. These tests look at both the background of the person entering Australia, and the reason for their attempt. As the background of many refugees is either difficult to uncover and check, a lengthy time will often take place before a security assessment is given. This length of time, during which the refugee is detained, is what has caused the uproar from the pro refugee camp.
However, the question must be asked – “Do we err on the side of caution or humanity?” The refugees are not treated inhumanely while in detention. While they are not free to go, they have access to medical care, educational materials, housing, and conditions most likely better than what they fled from. This is not to say that the conditions are ideal, however in Australia they are held by a country which upholds Human Rights, will not torture them, and in which there is a large support for them.
ASIO security assessments must be conducted to ensure the security of the Australian people, and of the country itself. Extremist organisations, such as Al Qaeda, have long seen Australia as a target. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that such groups would seek to place operatives into Australia to carry out future attacks. Indeed, this has already been attempted, with known Al Qaeda senior operatives prevented from entering the country by ASIO. Political theory states that a state’s primarily function under the social contract theory is to provide a safe and secure environment for it’s citizens. To fully provide a safe and secure environment, a secure border must be maintained.
The Greens, including poster child Sarah Hanson Young, are calling strongly for a 30 day turnaround period for refugees entering Australia before it is referred to judicial review, and out of the hands of ASIO. Frankly, this requirement is unreasonable and impossible to reach, given the complexity of the background checking process required. Demanding an adequate security review of an unknown person in the same time that an average commercial invoice must be paid in shows an appalling ignorance of the situation and the threats facing Australia. ASIO does not devote full resources to processing refugees, nor can it. In addition to this task, ASIO is tasked with investigating internal threats to Australia, liaising with businesses to ensure their security, carrying out counter intelligence operations against Australia’s foreign competitors, and cultivating sources and leads from within immigrant communities and the general public to prevent terrorist attacks upon Australia.
If such a time frame were imposed, either one of two things would happen: ASIO would either rush through a security assessment, which may or may not be accurate, or they would as a matter of course deport any individual which had a potentially murky background. Thus, the entire purpose of this time frame would be defeated, with less refugees successfully entering the country.
The argument will be given by the pro refugee supporters that there is a minority of “boat people” entering the country, compared to other immigration channels, and that the majority of these are legitimate refugees. This I do not doubt, nor contest. It is not my belief that Australia is under siege by immigrants, nor does the thought of a diverse and multicultural country frighten me. I work for a foreign company, and before that worked in the office of a foreign government. I grew up in a foreign nation, and am proud to have studied with, worked with, dated, and been friends with a number of immigrants to this country. I am not some wild eyed Nationalist, terrified of the lack of national identity or “Australian values”.
However, the Australian government has a moral obligation, not only to help those in need, but to ensure a secure nation.
Another argument which supports the regulation of immigration is that of organised crime. Whatever way you want to look at it, the smugglers bringing refugees into Australia are not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. They are not humanitarians, and frankly do not do it for the refugees. They are paid, often quite well, for their services by those entering Australia illegally. This makes them an organised criminal element, and one which Australia is obligated and required to regulate and control. Suppose the cargo was different? Instead of smuggling in humans, what if they were to smuggle in heroin from Afghanistan? What if, instead of refugees, the smugglers were to bring in a boat of young girls for prostitution in Australia? It does not matter to the smuggler, as long as he is paid. The smuggling network is one that has existed before “boat people”, but that has blossomed and increased dramatically, especially since the increasing support for refugees in Australia has begun. Australia cannot, and should not, support a criminal network which is operating illegally on our borders.
There is no simple solution to the “boat people” dilemma. The current situation is unsustainable, as there is no political will to take a decisive course of action. The current wait times do need to be decreased for legitimate refugees. And there have been abuses in detention, some of which could have been prevented.
But is the answer to either have a revolving door for illegal immigrants where they are processed directly into the country? Should they be given immediate temporary VISAS upon arrival and then released into the community while their application is processed (as is argued by some supporters)? The answer is, no! Such a course of action will make it almost impossible to maintain the whereabouts of illegal immigrants, and will drastically decrease Australia’s security, not only from terrorist elements, but from foreign agents, international criminals, and other undesirables.
Sitting in our ivory tower, on the sunny streets of Melbourne in a cafe sipping on a latte, it is very easy to condemn the Australian government for cruelty in mandatory detention. And in an ideal world, where every person was innocent, every person was good at heart, and every refugee was legitimate, this would be a correct denunciation. However, the world is not perfect. There is no perfect solution.
All sides and parties to this debate have to change their approach. The government must take a firm and decided stance on the issue, and cease to use the issue as a political football. The anti refugee party must concede that legitimate refugees entering Australia should have the right to asylum and protection. The pro refugee lobby needs to hang up the protest banners, stop demanding the impossible, and accept the reality of the situation. And the refugees would help their cause a lot more by not burning their quarters, rioting on Christmas Island, and giving the government reason to detain them further.
That something needs to be done is evident. What the answer will be is not in the scope of this article, nor does the author pretend to have a solution. However, I do believe that for the security of Australia, proper and complete security assessments must be completed before illegal immigrants can be released into Australia. And however long this would reasonably take should be the period of detention.
The New Phoenix 