Thousands of displaced and often persecuted people attempt to make it to ?Australia by boat every year.
None of them — if very few — ever make it.
The Australian government has taken an off-shore processing policy, wherein anyone who arrives by boat is immediately taken to one of two camps in either Papua New Guinea or Nauru.
If any of the brave travelers are found to be refugees, they are resettled in Papua New Guinea permanently.
The international community, most notably the UN, has frowned upon this.
They have even hinted that the policy might be a ?violation of international law.
Many cite the poor conditions of the camps and the seemingly harsh nature of the policy in their protest ?against it.
This has done little to change Australia’s position.
In fact, the policy has widespread public support.
I think the entire issue raises an important question about basic human rights, especially in today’s world, where most of the developed nations are grappling with their own immigration and migration problems.
I am actually in favor of, or at least indifferent toward, Australia’s policy.
I was raised in Papua New Guinea, not horribly far from where the refugees ?are held.
I would concur that the conditions are not modern, but that is not ?something new.
I find it distasteful that we would be so moved by the plight of the refugees and feel nothing toward the millions of people that actually live in Papua New Guinea and have done so for hundreds of years, who I assure you are not fairing any better.
Where is the outrage ?over that?
I am all for improving conditions, but let’s start with the locals.
I am not one for selective outrage.
We are dangerously on the verge of redefining what a natural or basic human right entails.
It used to be that natural rights were questions of personal sovereignty and the ability to exercise that sovereignty over your own life, ?unencroached by others.
Yet at the same time, personal sovereignty was restrained by the idea that my rights end where ?another’s begin.
In simple terms, liberty is created in the balancing ?of sovereignty.
Today, however, we are beginning to see ?something different.
Rights have come to mean more than my ability to be sovereign over my ?own existence.
Rather, they mean to claim that I have the “right” to make over society.
A right to education, healthcare or even resettlement if I am a refugee, for example.
I find these new ?rights troublesome.
They upset the balance because in order for you to exercise your claim over society, society has to further decrease the sovereignty of ?the individuals within it.
Government has to grow, taxes have to be levied and regulation instituted — all of which encroach ?the individual.
This world is filled with tragedy, and certainly many refugees have ?suffered greatly.
But they have no legitimate right to be resettled where they choose, just as I have no legitimate right to education, healthcare, wealth or any other such thing.
cgerst@indiana.edu
