The Forum > Article Comments > The return to Rudd: a turn for the worse on asylum seeker policy? > Comments
The return to Rudd: a turn for the worse on asylum seeker policy? : Comments
By Azadeh Dastyari, published 11/7/2013We got an old/new Prime Minister in Kevin Rudd, found out that our first female Prime Minister was quitting politics, and learned what the Foreign Minister Bob Carr thinks of refugees and our international obligations to protect them.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:40:39 PM
| |
Rhian,
This paper by Eric Neumayer looks at asylum claims in Europe to analyse the reasons for seeking asylum. People were motivated by both economic factors and various forms of violence and persecution, and sometimes a mixture of different factors, i.e., some are refugees, who may also be looking for the best economic opportunities, and others are economic migrants. http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/research/Researchpapers/rp82.pdf This briefing paper from the UK collects the Home Office statistics on asylum claims in the UK between 1997 and 2004. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108 During that time period, there were 499,000 asylum claims, although this figure doesn't include dependants who arrived later. 22.6% of the claimants were found to be genuine refugees, including after appeal. How do you account for the discrepancy in acceptance rates? Britain is also a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and thus the bar should be the same height. Another 14.4% were given exceptional leave to remain, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, since people fleeing violence aren't always defined as refugees under the Convention, but often because difficulties are anticipated in removing them. 63% of the asylum seekers had their claims rejected. Of these people, only 23.8% were removed. You can talk blithely about sending failed asylum seekers home, but this is very difficult to do if they have destroyed their travel documents and we can't prove where they came from. Even if we can, the home country often has no incentive to cooperate. Leaving them in the developed country may mean one less unemployed person or member of a troublesome minority, as well as a flow of remittances. What do we do with them if we can't prove where they came from or the home country won't take them back? How can you be sure that that 90% acceptance rate is not due to people destroying their travel documents and being coached in uncheckable stories by the people smugglers? The more of their clients that are accepted, the better for business. See http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/22/1029114162991.html Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:43:23 PM
| |
Divergence
The first paper you quote does not support your argument, finding that political conditions in source countries are the most important cause of asylum seeking. It concludes “This puts the perception that almost all asylum seekers are merely searching for better economic conditions into great doubt” (p.33). It finds that economic factors are also an influence. The two are not mutually exclusive. Oppressed minorities often have fewer economic opportunities than the broader population, and this may influence their decision to seek asylum, but it doesn’t render their claim to be refugees invalid. Migration Watch hardly looks like a credible source, but even if its numbers are right there are many reasons why the UK’s situation is very different. The UK’s borders are much more open, its population is larger, many more people claim asylum there and many have crossed the borders in into the country (mostly by legal means) when they claim asylum. The “people smugglers” must be extraordinarily good teachers, and the immigration officials extraordinarily dumb, for the 90% acceptance rate to be attributable to “coaching”. Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 11 July 2013 5:21:48 PM
| |
We do not have a quota for asylum seekers Joe, how many times do you have to be told.
QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET ESTIMATES HEARING: 20 OCTOBER 2009 IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO (80) Program 2.1: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance Senator Fierravanti-Wells asked: In relation to the number of places allocated to non-UNHCR-registered asylum seekers, please provide a breakdown including: a. the number of places allocated to unauthorised arrivals by boat; b. the number of places allocated to unauthorised arrivals by air; c. the number of places allocated to persons who had arrived on a valid visa a Answer: Allocations, targets, or limits are not made in relation to Protection visas for asylum seekers. If all the criteria for a Protection visa are met, the visa will be granted and no distinction within the Program is made regarding the lawful status or arrival means of the applicant. Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 11 July 2013 5:47:10 PM
| |
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-11/sayed-abbas-extradition-verdict/4814758
And here we go. We can no longer render people to Australia if they don't commit any crime here. All those we have done it to must now be entitled to compensation. Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 11 July 2013 7:05:57 PM
| |
If people need papers to travel through transit countries, what is wrong with requiring them to present same to our authorities, to support any and all asylum claims.
Yes genuine asylum seekers could arrive without papers and just what they stand in. In that event it's difficult to see them being able to pay people smugglers quite exorbitant fees for a short one way trip into our waters. [Moreover, it may cost considerably less to fly here as a tourist or student, and by much safer means.] Even then, our inquisitorial process is so flawed that some of the criminal people smugglers have inserted themselves into this tide of human misery, and claimed to be genuine asylum seekers. I think the bar does need to be lifted, so that genuine asylum seekers are the ones we preference, rather than humbugging liars! For my money, we should be employing space age lie detection, i.e., thermal imaging and computer facial recognition. Neither is invasive and can be applied covertly. Thermal imaging works even with accomplished liars and cheats. When people lie, various parts of the brain automatically light up. Computer facial recognition is also useful, inasmuch as it sees and recognises the tiny micro movements, that the human eye, even the trained one misses. And those movements tell us many other things besides whether the answers are honest or not! Genuine refugees have nothing at all to fear from this assisted examination! Whereas, the cheats who are trying to steal their places, have every reason to fear a vastly more professional examination. In any event, arriving here, after quite deliberately destroying identifying documentation, ought to result in an automatic fail. If that were the case, people who are genuine, would no longer resort to their destruction. By all means let's accept even more refugees, double or treble the intake. And we could if we were no longer spending billions trying to accommodate the tide the people smugglers are imposing on us! Just be sure we do enough to actually fully and professionally validate their claims! Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 11 July 2013 10:06:41 PM
|
We've had this chat before :)
Is there, or is there not, an annual quota of refugees ? I thought it was currently around twenty thousand.
OR, are refugees arriving by boat, over and above any quota ? If so, is there any upper limit ? One hundred thousand ? Two hundred thousand ? No limit ?
No country in the world has open slather. Yes, some countries, like Jordan, are currently having great numbers forced onto them, through no fault of the people involved - genuine Syrian refugees - but if they could, they would also set a limit, I'm sure.
What's wrong with this picture ?
Joe