The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What does our treatment of asylum seekers say about national character? > Comments

What does our treatment of asylum seekers say about national character? : Comments

By Justine Toh, published 7/7/2015

We still manage to live with ourselves but whether we actually like ourselves is another matter.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. All
Hi JKJ
Do you intend to draft a similar deed for those who want indefinite detention of asylum seekers to undertake to carry the costs of their preferred policy?
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 13 July 2015 11:37:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Foxy and Rhian,

I hate to ask the obvious questions but, darn it, I must:

1. Would the boat-people stuck on Nauru and Manus Island and in Cambodia, rather be back in Indonesia ? And even closer to home ?

2. If they had their time over again, would they have filled out all the proper forms and just waited ? Like so many of the other sixty million refugees around the world, many in far more dire circumstances than people who can afford to get on a boat ?

If I were Hunt, I would be providing them all with free phones, to let any future boat-people in on what the consequences are of trying it.

Increase the annual quota, double it to include the most desperate, like those poor buggers from Syria and the Rohingya and from South Sudan and Eritrea and now Nigeria. But send any queue-jumpers to the back of the queue.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 13 July 2015 11:57:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe
We can’t really tell the answers to your questions, but by guess is:

1. Maybe. If it were me, I’d rather be free in Indonesia than imprisoned on Manus. But, perhaps the detainees hope that they will eventually be settled somewhere other than Indonesia, where they have no right to work and little or no income support. New Zealand accepted some of Australia’s detainees who were found to be genuine refugees.
It does see a little off that a rich, sparsely-populated country like Australia is trying to palm this problem off onto a poor, densely-populated one.

2. For most, this isn’t an option. About 80,000 refugees are resettled each year, less than 1% of the total. So if there really was an orderly queue, the wait for resettlement would be somewhat over 100 years. In practice of course it doesn’t work like that. The UN’s resettlement programs concentrate on resettling people from a few priority countries where they are able to screen and process applicants. Recipient countries tend to specify where they will accept refugees from, and in some cases this is ad hoc in response to a particular crisis – for example, some countries have recently agreed to accept a one-off quota of Syrian refugees. If you happen to be a refugee in a place without a formal processing channel, or you are not in a country or category prioritised by the UN or a host country, your chances of resettlement are very slim. There is no queue to join.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 13 July 2015 2:55:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rhian,

I'm not sure of your figures - the US takes in something like 300,000 refugees each year (somebody surely has more accurate figures) and by the look of it, Europe will take in a million. New Zealand officially takes 750 each year and Australia (I think) 14,000, which could be kicked up substantially.

As for a queue, of course there is one: it may not be a simple one, because individuals would be judged according to all sorts of criteria of urgency, need, danger, family, etc. But if person A has lodged forms before person B, and person C, etc., all with similar circumstances, then there is a queue.

In the long run, of course, the problems which create refugees have to be resolved at source, which is certainly easier said than done. I'm sure most refugees would rather be home than in strange countries. But until it's as safe for them to do that, as safe as it is for us in our daily lives, then all other countries have a duty to support them.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 13 July 2015 6:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe

Sorry, I should have given a source. The 60,000 is only those formally settled with the assistance of UNHCR resettlement scheme.
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html

Other arrivals may be accepted as refugees or under other programs, but I’d be surprised in the USA gets to 300,000.

I agree most refugees want to return home. The problem is they usually can’t do so safely, sometimes for decades.

Only about 10% of refugees are classified as in need of resettlement. These are primarily people “living in perilous situations or have specific needs that cannot be addressed in the country where they have sought protection”. If you meet these criteria you can join the “queue”, and wait.

If you don’t, you must stay wherever you first find asylum, however grim the conditions and remote your prospect of ever going home. Some African refugees have been in camps for decades. There are a few in India who have been in camps since partition in the 1940s.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/south-asia/in-limbo-between-india-and-bangladesh-a-refugee-camp-is-home

My guess is that a significant proportion of the refugees trying to get to Australia are from the 90% who do not qualify as “in need of resettlement”, and so would never get to join a “queue”. I know many people think they should stay put in refugee camps. But the conditions there can be appalling: living in a tent or humpy, little or no schooling, rudimentary health care, malnutrition, and often rape and violence. I accept that Australia cannot take everyone who wants to come here; but I can't blame people for trying.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 13 July 2015 7:18:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Justine,

A timely article.

It was Paul Keating who said when you change the government you change the country. I think to a good degree he was right.

I would even go further, when oppositions are given clear air like Abbott and company in the years of a fractious minority government under Gillard, the power to elicit changes in opinion and impact on the prevailing mood is already in their hands. Abbott used that power to great effect in his drive for the ultimate prize. It was an anything goes campaign that I believe has done this country great harm, especially in the way it thinks about itself.

I had many reasons to be proud of this nation, of its institutions and its standards. I have far fewer now.

There are numerous stances the Abbott government has taken that have served to belittle us. An example of one such position was during the CHOGM meeting in Sri Lanka.

Canada's PM Stephen Harper refused to attend as did the Indian PM both citing ongoing human rights abuses. David Cameron did attend but took several opportunities to strongly condemn the Sri Lankan government in no uncertain terms.

Cont...
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 9:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy