Tough love? Australia's Abbott says turning away migrants saves lives.

Facing an immigration crisis, some European politicians seem tempted by Australia's hardline policies. But human rights advocates warn the result may be more deaths, not fewer. 

Visar Kryeziu/AP
Migrants sailing from Turkey arrive at the Greek island of Lesbos. Some politicians, including Australian PM Tony Abbott, argue that deaths at sea are best prevented by strictly limiting immigration.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott says there is a clear solution for the chaos unfolding as unprecedented numbers of migrants race towards Europe: turn them back.

The ongoing immigration crisis intensified this week, particularly in Budapest, Hungary, where thousands of migrants remain stranded in streets around the train station. Pictures of Aylan Kurdi, a Syrian toddler who drowned off the coast of Turkey, also elicited calls for greater immigration quotas from citizens, clergy, and lawmakers.

Mr. Abbott, however, firmly stands by Australia’s hardline policy: the Navy routinely sends migrant boats back to Indonesia, where most began their journey; settles them in other countries; or redirects asylum seekers to offshore processing centers, which many claim are rife with abuses. 

The Prime Minister argues that such tough tactics save lives. "If you want to stop the deaths, if you want to stop the drownings you have got to stop the boats,” he told ABC Radio on Friday. 

Abbott has encouraged European leaders to follow suit, and they may be listening. On Thursday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said it would be a “moral failure” to encourage migrants, and told them, “Please don’t come,” suggesting that it would be safer to stay in Turkey, a frequent stop en route to Western Europe.

Hungary has attracted criticism for a recent set of like-minded actions. In addition to holding migrants in limbo in Budapest, where authorities have refused to let migrants journey on to other countries before they are registered, Hungary is constructing a fence along its border with Serbia. Moreover, Orban has said explicitly that he does not want Muslim migrants, defending Hungary’s “right to decide” who lives there.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has also hesitated to accept migrants beyond the 5,000 Syrian refugees the UK has taken in over four years. Instead, Cameron has focused efforts on stabilizing conditions in migrants’ home countries, as well as supporting refugee camps in the Middle East.

But on Friday, Mr. Cameron changed his mind, announcing that Britain would take in "thousands more" Syrian refugees, according to Reuters.

Cameron did not specify how many migrants the UK would take in, but said they would need to come from Middle Eastern refugee camps, to spare them “the hazardous journey which has tragically cost so many of their lives.”

However, many critics question whether hardline policies will improve migrants’ chances, or drive them towards more dangerous paths.

Australia’s offshore detention centers are the focus of particularly strong condemnation. On Thursday, the editorial board of The New York Times called the policy “unconscionable” and possibly in violation of international law.

Despite what the Times call “purgatory” conditions, detailed in an Australian Senate report and brought to light by dozens of center employees, a law enacted July 1 makes it illegal for staff to publicly discuss their work, making it near-impossible to report abuses.

As the Australian Human Rights Law Center has pointed out, at one center, on Manus Island, more refugees have died than been resettled. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.