I would like to thank Jessie Taylor & Gordon Preece for helping me to think about this issue in a clearer manner.
 |
| Refugees on Nauru during the 'Pacific Solution' era |
Biblical teaching suggests that Christians have a
special duty to love those who are foreigners and refugees (Deuteronomy 10:19).
How should this teaching be understood and applied by Christian citizens
in Australia's current political context?
Introduction
This article seeks to examine if and to what extent
the normative elements of the Christian texts are relevant to the context of
the current debate surrounding uninvited asylum seekers in Australia. I begin
by providing a brief outline of the current political situation. Then, I
explore the relationship between the biblical narrative, Christian principles
of justice, and the politics of asylum. Finally I will consider the normative
implications of applying Christian principles of justice within the Australian
political context and what issues this may raise.
The Australian context
Many Australians will remember the famous words of
John Howard in 2001 when he declared ‘we will decide who comes to this country
and the circumstances in which they come.’
Thus began, or at least brought to the surface, a nation’s fear of so-called
‘illegals’, ‘queue-jumpers’, ‘aliens’, or the all-inclusive term ‘boat people’.
In August of that same year, a small fishing boat called ‘Palapa I’ was discovered
by MV Tampa as it carried 433 asylum seekers who were ‘mostly Hazaras
escaping the Taliban.’ MV Tampa, the Norwegian fishing vessel proceeded
to take the asylum seekers to Christmas Island, However, the SAS forcefully
gained control of the vessel. On September 11, 2001, the Federal court ruled
that ‘the government was obliged to bring the asylum seekers ashore and assess
their claims.
Later, that decision was reversed and the refugees recued by MV Tampa
were taken to Nauru. The ‘Tampa affair’ presented Howard with the perfect
opportunity to reassure Australians that the government was in control of the
nation’s borders.
The offshore processing of the refugees discovered
by MV Tampa in the Indian Ocean marked the beginnings of the ‘Pacific
Solution’, which would a decade later be reinvented by the Gillard-Labour
government in response to political turmoil over an apparent ‘influx’ of ‘boat
people’. This costly endeavour of sending those who ask for our help to
offshore detention centres has been praised for its effectiveness, or more
precisely, its ability to ‘stop the boats’. The slogan ‘stop the boats’ has
been embraced by both major Australian political parties.
Digging beneath the surface of such a slogan reveals the troubling normative
issues in deterring asylum seekers through what is effectively indefinite
imprisonment (or more diplomatically, detention). The costs associated with
offshore processing are not just financial but also moral, psychological, and
spiritual. I believe the Christian metaphysical underpinning that can operate
from a non-consequentialist basis has something unique to offer the ethical
discourse on this matter.
A biblical narrative
The narrative of the biblical texts are crucial for
developing a holistic understanding of what a biblical response to this
seemingly complex issue could look like. Rev. Dr. Gordon Preece emphasises that
‘we are all boat people,’ and that like us, ‘the Israelites needed repeated
reminding that they were originally refugees.’
William Cavanaugh goes further in suggesting that the church itself is ‘already
constituted by refugees,’ not merely originally, but is continually a
body of refugees.
The Old testament provides countless images of
refugee stories. The Hebrew word ‘ger’ appears 92 times in the text. The word is translated to mean ‘stranger’
(Gen15:13, 23:4), ‘sojourner’ (Exod 2:22, 1 Chron 29:15), ‘alien’ (Exod 12:19,
2 Chron 2:17), or ‘foreigner’ (1 Chron 22:2). Nearly
all appearances of this word are accompanied by normative commands. Examples
of these normative commands can be found when God orders no preferential
treatment for the native-born over the alien (Lev 24:16, Num 9:14), when God
orders the Israelites to love the foreigners (Deut 10:19), and when God
commands the Israelites to leave enough food ‘for the foreigners, orphans, and
widows (Deut 24:20).Rather than top down charity which
reinforces existing power relations, there is a strong emphasis on empathetic
solidarity in the biblical text.
Furthermore, Jesus is presented
as a refugee who is fleeing a despotic dictator who gave orders ‘to kill all
the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under.’ As a
refugee King, Jesus recapitulated the normative themes explored in relation to
refugees in the Old Testament texts. In Matthew 25, for example, Jesus tells
his followers that we must view actions which are to the benefit of the least
advantaged members of society as our duties as people who claim to love God. It is
in this crucial passage where Jesus explicitly states that there is no
difference between an act of commission and an act of omission. Not
doing something good, in Jesus’ ethical framework, is doing something bad. In
other words, ignorance is not bliss.
Christians are far from
united on the specific issue of ‘boat people’, perhaps even more so than other
modern political and ethical issues that the churches are tackling. Tony
Abbott, the leader of the federal Liberal party, when responding to a question
about ‘why his attitude to asylum seekers was unchristian’ responded by suggesting:
‘I don’t think it’s a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather
than the front door.’ But as
Preece points out, there have been plenty of Christian Refugees at Maribynong,
Woomera, and Curtin detention centres. Others,
such as the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, have endorsed the
Houston and Aristotle reports, effectively supporting the reintroduction of the
‘Pacific Solution’ even though Jensen opposed offshore processing a decade
earlier, arguing that ‘illegal’ actions of asylum seekers were caused by
necessity.
Normative issues
The consequences of a
policy of deterrence can be severe and the policy can cost lives. On the other
hand, the consequences of having no deterrence mechanism in place could also
cost lives. In a normative sense, all I have suggested thus far is that we
should be nice to refugees, which I presume is fairly uncontroversial. The next
section seeks to establish which moral theory is most compatible with a
biblical response to this issue.
The justifications
given in support of coercive deterrence mechanisms in regards to those seeking
asylum are largely utilitarian. The utilitarian perspective suggests that the means
can be compromised in order to achieve the desired ends. This means
that a utilitarian would find it acceptable to strive towards an ideal through
non-ideal means. This is the first and most obvious clash between Christianity
and utilitarianism. If Jesus wanted us to ‘love our neighbours’ or ‘love our
enemies’ only when it was effective, then the command itself is ruled invalid
by a greater command of ‘do what is most effective’. Martin Luther King, Jr.
noticed this contradiction between Christian thought and utilitarianism,
contending, ‘ultimately you can’t reach good ends through evil means, because
the means represent the seed and the end represents the tree.’
Elsewhere he suggests that ‘the means represent the ideal in making and the end
in process ... So as you seek justice as an end, you use just methods to get
there.’ Paul writes
in Romans that the people who think the Christians are teaching ‘let’s do evil
so that good will come from it’ will be justly condemned. Sending asylum seekers to
detention centres in third world countries is the most explicit example of
doing evil, in the hope that good will eventuate.
The second problem
associated with the utilitarian justification for sending asylum seekers to
places like Nauru is that it treats the individual asylum seekers who are sent
to Nauru as mere means rather than ends in themselves. This is
a separate problem from the first issue raised which is specifically about the
inconsistency of the means. The second problem differentiates the common asylum
seeker from the common criminal. The common criminal has her liberty denied firstly
for her own sake (rehabilitation, inability to reoffend), and the secondly, as
a means to deter other people from committing that same crime. For
example, I would agree to live in a society where if I murdered someone I would
then be incarcerated. Even if I am not rational at the time I murder someone, I
can say now that it would be in my best interests to be separated from
society for a time and to receive compulsory counselling and behavioural
training so that I can be rehabilitated. Whereas, the common asylum seeker
differs from the common criminal in that the asylum seeker has committed no
moral or legal wrong, does not need rehabilitation, and imprisonment,
(particularly in places like Nauru) and imprisonment is not in the asylum
seekers’ interests. Imprisoning people who have committed no crime in order to
deter other people from asking for our help treats the imprisoned people as a
means rather than an end and strips them of their personhood and equality under
God.
It is important to
remark, that even if the utilitarian framework is accepted, one still needs to
consider whether the empirical data shows that coercive deterrence leads to the
maximisation of welfare. In a similar way, a utilitarian would only support
torture in circumstances where welfare is maximised (eg., torturing one person
to save the lives of two others). Authors such as Andy Lamey point out that
Australia’s deterrence system causes asylum seekers to suffer from high stress
levels and an increased risk of committing suicide. He also
points out that it gives them a status lower than criminals which is
detrimental to their identity. This
shows that even from a utilitarian perspective (which does not generally synthesise
with biblical teaching) it is difficult to justify ‘stopping the boats’.
A common objection to
applying biblical principles to national security policies is the radical and
demanding outcomes they infer. Unfortunately Christian thinkers such as Preece
and Ralston have done very little to address the objection which asks: ‘at what
point ought we turn people away?’ Preece inaccurately suggests that ‘even the
most bleeding hearted, naive liberal is not saying ‘let everyone in’.’ Perhaps most liberals are not arguing this
approach, but some of them are, and they should be considered. Still, it is
unclear as to when Preece thinks we should begin to refuse asylum seekers
protection and what means we should use to keep uninvited asylum seekers out of
Australia. Ralston suggests that it is not necessary for the church to
‘advocate for a complete open-door policy to refugees,’ pointing out that the
break-even point may arise if resettling refugees has a negative outcome for
the ‘existing marginalised populations.’
One suggestion would be
that our obligations begin at the point where we have to sacrifice something
significant, but they should not exceed the point where our self-care
diminishes. In regards to where our obligations begin, we should take seriously
Carens’s claim that ‘we have an obligation to open our borders more fully than
we do now,’ and especially more fully to those who are in need. Carens suggests that ‘open immigration would
change the character of the community, but it would not leave the community
without character.’ We must avoid holding on to our ideals of a
static hegemonic culture when displaced people require our assistance. In
regards to the upper constraints of our obligations, we should not require of
ourselves more than God has called us to. God has called all believers to love
their neighbour as themselves, which requires a basic level of self-love
and self-care as a means to fulfil his work on earth.
Conclusion
In terms of acting upon
our obligations as Christians to care for the refugee, I will briefly note one
model which Ralston believes is compatible with a Christian understanding of
justice. Ralston suggests that one of the most effective ways of communicating
God’s ‘love and presence’ is through living with refugees, as exemplified by
the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS). He believes that the church is lacking in
genuine encounters with refugees, and I am not inclined to disagree with him.
This same model is being replicated through the ‘First Home Project’ in Perth,
Australia. The Christian call is, however, not limited to one particular model
(which some may find too demanding in their current context). Political
activism and financial donations, or offerings of skills training and language
development are all ways that Christians can live out the community and
compassion they have been called to.
In conclusion, the
Christian narrative and principles of justice encourage Christians to treat
asylum seekers as humans who hold inalienable rights. This essay has shown the
incompatibility of utilitarianism and the Christian ethical framework. First,
coercive deterrence mechanisms severely compromise the commands which have been
given to us in regards to how we ought to treat our neighbours. Second, people
should not be treated as mere means due to their mode of transport and their
legal status. Therefore, the Christian cannot endorse a policy which seeks to
coercively use one lot of people purely as a means to deter others from asking
for our assistance.
Works Cited
ABC. “Seek and Ye Shall
Submit (Transcript).” Q&A, September 10, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3581623.htm.
Biblos.com. “Online
Parallel Bible”, 2011. http://bible.cc/.
Burnside, Julian.
“Australians Don’t Fully Understand What Is Being Done in Their Name.” The
Age, August 26, 2011. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/australians-dont-fully-understand-what-is-being-done-in-their-name-20110825-1jcbn.html#ixzz28TZW5Dm7.
Carens, Joseph H.
“Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” The Review of Politics
49, no. 2 (April 1, 1987): 251–273.
Cavanaugh, William T.
“Migrant, Tourist, Pilgrim, Monk: Mobility and Identity in a Global Age.” Theological
Studies 69, no. 2 (June 2008): 340–356.
Clarke, Sarah.
“Liberals Accused of Trying to Rewrite History.” Lateline. ABC, November
21, 2001. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s422692.htm.
Jensen, Peter.
“Interview with Amy Butler on Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers and
Refugees”, 2001. http://sydneyanglicans.net/seniorclergy/archbishop_jensen/48a.
Kant, Immanuel. “The
Categorical Imperative.” In Ethics, edited by Peter Singer, 274–279.
Oxford University Press, USA, 1994.
King, Martin Luther. “A
Christmas Sermon on Peace” (n.d.).
———. Methodist
Student Leadership Conference Address. September 10, 2011. American
Rhetoric, 1964.
Lamey, Andy. Frontier
justice : the global refugee crisis and what to do about it. Canada:
Doubleday Canada, 2011.
Maccullum, Mungo.
“‘Stop the Boats’ Has Become Bipartisan Policy.” ABC, July 2, 2012.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4105116.html.
Mares, Peter. Borderline :
Australia’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Sydney, Australia:
UNSW Press, 2001.
Preece, Gordon. “We Are
All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View.” In Refugees : justice or
compassion?, edited by Hilary D Regan, Andrew Hamilton, Mark Raper, and
Australian Theological Forum. Hindmarsh, S. Aust.: Australian Theological
Forum, 2002.
Ralston, Joshua.
“Toward a political theology of refugee resettlement.” Theological Studies
73, no. 2 (June 2012): 363+.
“Report of the Expert
Panel on Asylum Seekers”, n.d.
http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/report.
The Australian. “Abbott
Slams Boatpeople as un-Christian”, n.d.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/abbott-slams-boatpeople-as-un-christian/story-fn9hm1gu-1226422034305.
