MAY 19 — No one doubts that boats adrift with Rohingya refugees off our coast make for a monumentally tragic situation.

In the recent days, many have urged our government to rescue these refugees — essentially a call to bring them to shore. And if you oppose this, you’re likely to be viewed as some sort of sociopath unconcerned with human life.

But let’s look at this rationally for a moment.

When people say, let’s rescue the Rohingyas first and worry about the details later, they’re effectively admitting they have no plan. Not even an inkling of one. They don’t realise (or refuse to admit) that once the Rohingyas step foot on Malaysian soil, these refugees will be staying for good.

There won’t be any transfers to other nations because no one wants to take these refugees in, and we lose all negotiating leverage because every other country knows we’re not going to tow these refugees out to sea again.

If that happens, how do we stop the next 1,000 refugees from coming?

The next 10,000 refugees, the next 100,000 refugees, etc. Are we willing or should we be willing to live with an open borders policy in regard to refugees?

Have we considered the consequences and what are they?

Wouldn’t we be just perpetuating this murderous cycle?

These are critical questions that the most strident advocates of rescue have repeatedly failed to answer.

Many of them are right to point out the ghastly anti-immigrant prejudice and xenophobia behind much of the impetus to turn away these refugees.

Those impulses are wrong and must be roundly rejected. Without question, immigrants continue to be a great boon to this nation — they contribute to our economy and the rich diversity of our society. And we must continue to be a nation open to legal immigrants who are willing to work hard and integrate with our norms and values.

Yet, none of that detracts from the imperative that the government, any government, must have control over its borders and the influx of migrants.

How do you run any sort of country by ignoring that principle?

If we’re going to make an exception for this batch of refugees, where do we draw the line?

How do we draw the line?

There is no shortage of brutal regimes and civil wars in the world right now. And let’s be realistic — regardless of external pressure (either by us or the West), the persecution of Rohingyas in Myanmar isn’t likely to end in the foreseeable future. Are we prepared to take in more of these refugees? And how many more? And are we willing to bear the economic and social costs of such a policy?

Placing your fingers in your ears and screaming “Let’s all forget politics for one sec and be HUMAAAN!” isn’t going to make these difficult questions go away.

Certainly, those who call for the rescue of these refugees are decent, earnest, compassionate individuals with all the right motives.

However, they must be honest about what they’re asking Malaysians to agree to – not merely a rescue mission, but a rewriting of foreign and immigration policy with far-reaching consequences. And they must also recognise that it’s neither bigoted, nor inhumane to be unimpressed with a policy that’s essentially "feel first, and think later".

Taking these refugees in may be morally and emotionally satisfying, but at what cost and at what risk?

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.