Detention Centre vs Charter City

With debates surrounding ‘illegal immigration’ heating up in Australia once again, it is encouraging to hear some humane voices amongst our top level representatives. Kevin Rudd is, arguably, one of those voices; and has voiced a commitment to seek solutions. What I find disappointing is that Kevin Rudd’s solution entails the funding of detention centres in Indonesia.

“An Australian-funded detention centre built on Tanjung Pinang is capable of housing 600 people”, according to this report by ABC Indonesia correspondent Geoff Thompson.

Much of the debate has focused on the terminology that is used to describe asylum seekers, and the motivations and character of those asylum seekers. However, our Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, recently stated that “the terminology is not the issue here. What is the issue is the policy”. As I have already shown, the policy is clearly to continue funding detention centres.

I believe there is a viable alternative to detention centres; and that alternative is currently being developed by Stanford Economist, Paul Romer, under the conceptual title of Charter Cities. In basic terms, that is a city with a specific set of ‘good’ rules that permits people to opt in

For a Charter City to be made viable, in the context of ‘illegal’ immigration, there will need to be a serious reevaluation of the principles that governments and the citizens hold with regard to their sovereignty. If we are to begin imagining the possibility of a city into which dispossessed peoples can freely flow, we will need to imagine it in our own back yard. At this point I think it is useful to think about the terminology that we do use to describe these dispossessed peoples.

Dispossession entails either a voluntary relocation or an involuntary relocation. Voluntary relocation in this sense is forced by political, geographical, climatic or emotional environment i.e., lack of resources, lack of support, lack of safety. Every lack of a positive need presents a real or perceived threat. Those dispossessed people who voluntarily relocate due to any of these factors, and cross a politically defined border in the process, become an immigrant.

All dispossessed voluntary immigrants seek asylum from a real or perceived threat. Some voluntary immigrants seek asylum through channels that have not been approved of by the protectors of the politically defined border which that asylum is sought behind. The asylum seeker thus becomes an ‘illegal’ immigrant as defined by the AFP. Those individuals or groups who make this state of affairs possible are ‘people smugglers’, as defined by the AFP.

I propose that we define the people who make this state of affairs possible – me, you and your government; since it is we who define and protect the borders. Smuggling is illegal because we disapprove of the movement across our border.

Involuntary relocation differs from voluntary relocation insofar as the dispossessed peoples are quite literally forced against their will by an individual or group to relocate i.e., to be employed as prostitutes or laborers. People who are forced to relocate under these conditions are also defined by the AFP as ‘illegal’ immigrants. Those individuals or groups who make this state of affairs possible are defined, justly I think, by the AFP as ‘people traffickers’.

Involuntary relocation does not differ from voluntary relocation in that all involuntary immigrants would seek asylum from a real threat. Some of these already illegal immigrants will seek that asylum through channels that have not been approved by the protectors of the politically defined border which that asylum is sought behind. Many involuntary immigrants, if found, will be processed by a set of criteria which differs from those applied to voluntary immigrants.

I propose that these involuntary illegal immigrants be treated in the same way as voluntary illegal immigrants. That is, they are to be treated as humans who are entitled by us to claim asylum. Trafficking would remain illegal and would no doubt present its own problems to the development of the ‘charter city’ model.

The value of clarifying these terms as I have done is that we have given these people a human face. Our job now is to find a space for the asylum seekers. This is the appeal that I would like to make directly to the imaginations of our government, our opposition representatives and you.

Imagine a port on our coastline which has been specifically designed to receive voluntary immigrants. That port is resourced with all of the security and health check measures that you would find at an international airport. We actively encourage voluntary immigrants to land by air or sea at that port. We actively resource the individuals and groups who would bring those voluntary immigrants to our port with safe vessels, and we set their wages either independently or at a percentage of the funds received from the voluntary immigrants.

The voluntary immigrants are processed as speedily as you or I would expect to be, and they are directed to our ‘Charter City’. From that charter city they are provided with an opportunity to work, rest, play and dream of buying a house inside or outside of that charter city.

The involuntary immigrants are equally made to feel welcome in our charter city. Chances are that, given these conditions, they will choose to seek asylum within that city and thereby put the ‘traffickers’ out of business or under a greater risk of being apprehended.

Now imagine that the city brings great financial reward and honor to our country. How many other countries do you think would like to repeat that success?

Please take the time to watch this TED presentation by Paul Romer and imagine the possibilities.