At what cost?

The Australian government plans to divert funds from foreign aid programs to help pay for the influx of asylum seekers arriving on it's shores. Justification for the move has been stated along the lines of it being aid for the same people just in different locations.

What the move really sounds like is a bit of budgetary sleight of hand that allows the government to meet the (most basic) needs of asylum seekers arriving in Australian waters whilst still claiming to be meeting 'aid' targets. We've all done something similar to meet our own personal budgets. so like the government will find out we know that rather than helping both areas it just shortchanges everyone.

Amnesty International has spoken against the move (http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/30762/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=wallpost&utm_campaign=refugees) citing amongst it's reasons that the plan just won't work. The moves may in fact be counter productive as they entrench poverty and reliance on aid for those being received in Australia. Continuing a punitive detention policy also continues the likelihood of adverse mental health issues for those stuck in refugee limbo and overseas it removes vital aid that could contribute to stability in countries that people are presently fleeing.

So what is the cost here?

The government is attempting to implement a zero sum equation; what's given to asylum seekers balances that taken from aid. However in this scenario 'aid' and 'asylum seekers' sound more like commodities than people. Because they are people though the trade will never be zero sum; people just don't work like that.

Let's think about this using my best pseudo-economical babble:

At the moment everything is costing money and nothing is making money. Locking people up or supporting them in the community costs (rent assistance, food, healthcare); no argument there. Plus the uncertainty of waiting on an asylum assessment indefinitely leads to harmful mental health outcomes that must be paid for in the future by increased reliance on health services; more costs. Removing aid potentially destabilizes regions that would have received it leading to more people fleeing and seeking asylum; see above costs, but increased.

Now think about a less punitive, more welcoming, though initially more costly strategy. Forget about this 'no advantage' policy and expedite the claims of those seeking asylum in Australia. This eliminates the cost of detaining and housing; great, we're already cutting costs! This also mitigates the potential damage of mental health issues caused by indefinite detention. Once these freshly assessed people are able to join the community they will become that beacon of our free-market society; consumers! Maybe not straight away and certainly not at the expense of Australian jobs, if that's what you're worried about. Remember many asylum seekers will have limited English language skills initially and they're qualifications at home won't be immediately recognised; they're hardly coming for your job. What they will more likely do is seek and take less desirable jobs that are hard to fill.* Once they're working, they will also start spending at a gain to the economy of one happy, grateful consumer.

I've oversimplified these points a bit and I haven't even touched on the moral and ethical arguments for accepting asylum seekers. What I hope is that I've exposed how ludicrous some of the goverments attempts at rationalizing it's behaviour are. Both the human cost and the economic cost need not be as high as they are...

* I owe a few of these ideas from my reading of Philippe Legrain's Immigrants: your country needs them, (2007), Princeton University Press