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 > 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 11/7/2013

We 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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Sorry Azadeh but I support Bob Carr all the way.

There certainly does seem to be a big element of economic opportunism here. And we definitely DO need a tougher and more realistic assessment of refugees.

The really worrying thing is that the views you express, which are shared by the Greens and many other misguided humanitarian people, will continue to confound efforts to stop the boats and confine our international humanitarian efforts to within formal channels.

I implore you to stop focussing so narrowly on onshore asylum seekers and look at the whole picture, including Australia’s formal refugee intake within our immigration program, the nature of those people that are resettled here and how their claims compare to those facilitated by people-smugglers, our international aid programs, the effects that ongoing asylum seeking is having on Australian society, the huge monetary cost to the taxpayer, deaths at sea… and the eminent right that we have to control our borders and decide who comes to this country.

We need to stop the boats! We can do this AND be a respectably humanitarian nation.

It would help greatly if all those misguided humanitarians actually did the right thing and supported this… and concentrated their humanitarian efforts on improving the scale, efficiency and focus of our international aid, perhaps increasing the formal refugee intake, and the like.

< The return to Rudd: a turn for the worse on asylum seeker policy? >

Well, not a turn for the worse, because Labor was hopeless under Gillard in this regard. So hopefully it will lead to some level of improvement in the situation (which HE created!).

It will be most interesting to see how the interplay between Rudd and Carr pans out, given that they really are coming from opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 11 July 2013 10:56:03 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
Ludwig

I’m all for realistic assessment of refugees, and would agree that people who claim refugee status but are found not to be refugees (by a fair and impartial process) should be returned.

But asserting that someone is an economic migrant doesn’t make it so, whether the assertion is made by you or Bob Carr. As the article explains quite clearly, the definition of a refugee is a matter of international law, not Australian government diktat. Evaluation of arrivals against internationally agreed criteria has found about 90% of claimants to be actual refugees. If you think this is too high, you must presumably either disagree with the internationally agreed definition of a refugee, or believe that our screening process does not apply that definition properly. In either case, I’d like to see the basis for your conclusions.

I think the term “economic migrant” is another vile weasel expression, like “people smugglers”, designed to screen us from the moral bankruptcy or our increasingly cruel and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 11 July 2013 3:23:04 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
Well if Kevin Rudd has proved just one thing, he has proved that he is one of the most determined and implacable people on the planet.
I believe he has seen the light and is willing to take a new look through fresh eyes?
I find myself largely agreeing once again with Ludwig.
People that can afford to shell out $4,500.00 per passenger, for a one way trip to Christmas Island hardly fit the Asylum seeker model.
Which is to flee with what you stand in, and what you can hand carry, from official persecution?
We do need to take the sugar off the table.
At the conclusion of WW11, Europe was awash with displaced and or homeless people.
Those people to a person knew that their identifying documentation was their most prized possessions. Given that proved who they were and validated their claims!
Today's so-called asylum seeker has two very distinct choices, if they want to circumvent official channels. The first being to procure a visitor's visa, $80.00, and pay air fare. $500.00-$1,000.00?
And having safely arrived, present identifying documentation that supports their claims of persecution?
That's around $3,000.00 less than they currently shell out to criminal people smugglers! And, a far safer option!
And why would genuine asylum seekers deliberately destroy those documents that support their claims, unless of course, they did just the opposite?
In my opinion, arriving after destroying your identification documents and by irregular means, ought only result in automatic repatriation. [They need those same documents to travel through or stay in, so-called transit countries?]
If automatic repatriation is not currently possible, then they ought to be sent to somewhere where they're needed/sponsored, like the occasional pig farm, that simply can't get willing workers.
And paid just the minimum wage, until such time as their homeland is willing to accept them back and guarantee their safety/basic human rights.
There should be no family reunion, or permanent citizenship, unless they've come in the front door as an invitee, or as part of enlarged normal refugee resettlement!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:04:23 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
Ludwig, Carr was lying. HOw many times are you going to spew out hate for no reason against people who are VICTIMS of war, genocide, oppression and torture who have committed no crime.

Last year alone 6.5 million new people were forced to flee their homes for the above reasons, why do you think none of the should ever come and bother us?

Carr claims they all say the same thing - they are all asked the same question on arrival ""why are you here"', the answer will by necessity always be "" to seek refugee status""

How is that rehearsed when it is the law?

The problem with Carr is he is a dangerous fool.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:19:09 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
Rhosty, people who pay their own way are not doing anything wrong. Why do you pretend that is even an issue?

People who get to all parts of the world pay their own way, so what?

Does that somehow make them undeserving? Why do so many in Australia focus on this nonsense anyway and what does it have to do with us?

The only time refugees are our business is when they are here, what they do and how they travel and who they pay is irrelevant to anything.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:23:12 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
Ludwig, Rhosty

"Facts"

Not Pollie-speak

http://www.factsfightback.org.au/are-asylum-seeker-claims-genuine-check-the-facts/
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:31:42 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 Marilyn,

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
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:40:39 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@P'rot,

That was Bullsh!t -- NOT "facts"

There seems to be a strange malady that afflicts many on the open-borders side:assemble a grab-bag of lefty links, attach some puerile comment like "(here are the) facts" or "this site explains it all" then dump them on the thread in lieu of reasoned argument.

How about some independent thought?
_____________________________________________________________

@Rhian,

1) <<I think the term “economic migrant” is another vile weasel expression, like “people smugglers”>>
Surely you are kidding, if you want real weasel words have a look at:"irregular maritime arrivees" or "asylum seekers" --thems are the REAL weasels words.

2) <<The “people smugglers” must be extraordinarily good teachers, and the immigration officials extraordinarily dumb, for the 90% acceptance rate to be attributable to “coaching”>>

BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT! When they have no papers, no history and a well rehearsed story the UN convention instructs signatories to give scammers THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 12 July 2013 8:13:14 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
Rhian,

My last post never claimed that economic factors were the most important, only that both economic and political factors are at work, sometimes in the same person. Migration Watch UK would hardly lie about Home Office statistics, as these are easily checked. If you want to spend time looking at the primary sources, be my guest.

Britain, like Australia, doesn't have land borders, so people can't easily sneak in. Numbers of asylum seekers started off small in Europe as well. They only really started to snowball in the 1980s. People who will be starting from nothing in a strange country know that they are likely to need a support network, so they prefer to settle in places where there is already a community of their fellow countrymen. The first asylum seekers from Ruritania may well be genuine refugees and pretty desperate, but once they have an ethnic community in the host country, it acts as a magnet for more asylum seekers, especially the friends and relatives of the people who are already settled (chain migration). These people are not necessarily refugees. Doesn't it make you suspicious when so-called refugees return for a trip to the home country that they supposedly fled in terror?

The snowballing process has already started in Australia, with around 44,000 asylum claims from boat arrivals since Rudd has his brainstorm. There is no natural upper limit. There was a post from Yabby some time ago suggesting that a lot of money could be made by buying old sheep transport ships and bringing in thousands at a time.

You haven't addressed the issue of how we deal with failed asylum seekers. SPQR is right about benefit of the doubt. No official wants to read in the papers about how the asylum seeker he rejected ended up being tortured or killed. Not a good career move. Why shouldn't the absence of travel documents be taken as prima facie evidence of fraudulence, except in cases where the asylum seeker has not passed through third countries, as with some Sri Lankan Tamils?
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 12 July 2013 10:11:05 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
SPQR,

Excellent.....deny the fats and call it bullsh!t - if they don't happen to agree with your biased opinion.

And then claim to be an exponent of "independent thought"...

(As in, "anybody who holds a contrary opinion to SPQR obviously can't think independently")

You're just as partisan as the next guy, so give up on the objective/ independent thought line.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 12 July 2013 10:25:52 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
Poirot
Have to get in before you make a correction

<<Excellent.....deny the fats>>

LOL
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 12 July 2013 10:35:19 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
Yes, I noted that....

(double LOL:)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 12 July 2013 10:41:48 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
<< I’m all for realistic assessment of refugees, and would agree that people who claim refugee status but are found not to be refugees (by a fair and impartial process) should be returned. >>

Rhian, I’m pleased to hear it!

<< But asserting that someone is an economic migrant doesn’t make it so >>

Of course they need proper assessment. But you’ve got to think that those who pay large sums, and when they come from particularly poor countries these are very large sums indeed, to people-smugglers, then there is something decidedly more economic-migrantish than genuine-refugeeish about it all. These two categories are not necessarily discreet; there can be elements of both within the same people.

<< Evaluation of arrivals against internationally agreed criteria has found about 90% of claimants to be actual refugees. >>

Yes. But this is the benefit-of-the-doubt lenient-end-of-the-spectrum interpretation. I put it to you that a considerably tougher interpretation would still fall within the 1951 Convention definition very comfortably, and indeed a much tougher definition is used to select those who are resettled in Australia through our formal immigration program.

If boat-arrivals had been assessed using just the same interpretation as for those assessed through our formal programs, then the number accepted would be very much smaller.

There should be a no-displacement principle. Those coming here on boats should NOT ever have displaced more eligible refugees that would have been brought here. The most needy should get priority! This most important principle went by the wayside.

Failing this, there should definitely have be a no-advantage principle, whereby those coming on boats should be assessed to the same level of toughness as those offshore refugees that they would then displace if accepted.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 12 July 2013 10:47:42 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
I bet there is nothing in the Convention about the variability of refugee determination, or about the most needy getting priority treatment instead of being shunted aside in favour of the less needy.

And the Convention is open-ended in terms of the number of refugees or asylum seekers applying for refugee status, which of course is a fundamental flaw, and one of the big reasons why we need to abandon it and develop a new protocol.

Rhian, what about my comments regarding the bigger picture? Shouldn’t we be concentrating our efforts on refugee and related issues through our formal refugee program and international aid, and be striving to stop the boats entirely?
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 12 July 2013 10:49:01 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
I also am with Bob Carr. We need to get tougher of the Boat People. Marilynn Sheppard...if you have $10,000.00 to pay for placement on a leaky boat- no ID/passport, papers etc., you are not a refugee as far as I am concerned. I was also under the impression, that a refugee becomes the problem of the said country that is entered, from escaping their own country. They then can apply to immigrate to other countries through the proper procedures of that country's immigration requirements.
Posted by Shellybelly, Friday, 12 July 2013 12:21:30 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
SPQR
Where does the Convention instruct countries to give participants the benefit of the doubt? I must have missed that bit.

Divegence
Britain is an island, but nonetheless a lot easier to get into that Australia. Residents of the EU have rights of entry. There’s a tunnel, hundreds of international flights and a short boat trip from the continent, with regular ferries. There are also large numbers of freight movements –some asylum seeks enter hidden in containers. A smaller percentage of applicants in the UK are granted refugee status, but most are not detained, and most unsuccessful applicants appear to remain in Britain with indeterminate residency status. The situation is very different from here.

What do we do if we can’t identify a home country for failed asylum seekers? Work out where they are from (immigration officers often have a reasonable idea), get them to nominate a destination, or, if resettlement is not possible, put them in the community on a TPV if they are not a security risk.

Ludwig and Shellybelly
Whether a person has money has nothing to do with whether they are “genuine” refugees. I have friends who arrived here as refugees from the Croatian war of independence. They were educated, prosperous, middle class professionals, and they still had to flee for their lives, because their former neighbours would have killed them.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 12 July 2013 4:07:35 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
@ Rhian,

<<SPQR Where does the Convention instruct countries to give participants the benefit of the doubt? I must have missed that bit>>

Here you are Rhian -in the UN publication titled:

<<Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees>>

http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.html

see section <<3) Summary>>

QUOTE:

<<(b) The examiner should:
(i) Ensure that the applicant presents his case as fully as possible and with all available evidence.
(ii) Assess the applicant's credibility and evaluate the evidence (if necessary giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt), in order to establish the objective and the subjective elements of the case>>
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 12 July 2013 4:59:37 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
... precisely

so it's not a question of give anone without substantiating evidence the benefit of the doubt, but rather:

“…when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.”

Not quite the free ticket you implied. In these circumstances, benefit of the doubt seem reasonable to me.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 12 July 2013 5:29:48 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
Knock knock, Rhian,

There is NO <<substantiating evidence>>

They have no papers
They have no ID
They have no references

All they give us is a well rehearsed/rote learned generic story.

So --benefit of the doubt--they get rubber stamped :"found to be genuine"
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 12 July 2013 6:03:23 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
Rhian,

A failed asylum seeker's home country can't be conclusively identified because he has destroyed his travel documents. He refuses to go home. Sometimes the Immigration Department genuinely doesn't know where he came from. Is this Kurd a Turkish Kurd, a Syrian Kurd, an Iraqi Kurd, or an Iranian Kurd? Even if they do know, knowing isn't the same as proving. Even if they can prove it, the home country can refuse to cooperate with any forcible deportation. The bogus asylum seeker can stay in Australia forever for all they care.

You say that we should put him on a temporary protection visa (TPV), but what sort of deterrent is that? He won't be eligible for citizenship, but so what? There is little real prospect of deportation. He can still work and acquire those yummy First World consumer goods. We can stop him from bringing out his family, but if the asylum seeker is a young unmarried male, he might not care. If he is married, people like you will be lamenting our beastly inhumanity, and we may be luring women and children onto leaky boats. If the numbers become very large, which many of us think is very possible, and such people are allowed to work and bring in family, this can amount to an unarmed invasion.

In this British case, a court ordered a failed asylum seeker to cooperate with his removal and put him in prison for contempt of court when he refused.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/18/failed-asylum-seeker-iran-detention

You would be outraged if random strangers could wander into your house to doss down and help themselves, while the police and judges chuckled indulgently. Yet you are proposing exactly the same thing with respect to the collective property that we have worked for and financed with our taxes for ourselves, our family and friends, and our invited guests.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 12 July 2013 6:55:47 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
SPQR

given that there are pretty obvious reasons why some refugees don't have papers, would you prefer that everyone without documents was sent back?

There is no hard and fast rule on this, nor in my opinion shoud there be. But I think the benefit of the doubt probably should sway towards admitting people whi may not qualify as refugees rather then sending them back to places where they may be killed, imprisoned and tortured.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 12 July 2013 7:00:00 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
Rhian,

<< I think the benefit of the doubt probably should sway towards admitting people whi may not qualify as refugees rather then sending them back to places where they may be killed, imprisoned and tortured>>

I see now by implication you are acknowledging (my original proposition) that there is NO <<substantive evidence>> in a huge number --perhaps most-- case,

If they were in danger of returning to <<places where they may be killed, imprisoned and tortured>> then they would qualify as refugees.

The reality is, however, that most are in no danger what-so-ever of being <<killed, imprisoned and tortured>>. They are simply wanting to elevate their economic position.And burning ones papers and concocting a good sob story has become a popular,and all too easy way, of getting into affluent Western countries.

As Bob Carr said, that might have been tolerable when they were in their 100's but when they're in their tens-of-thousands and growing it is not workable.And bear in mind if that principle was was applied -- fairly -- hundreds of millions would qualify.

And as for this <<there are pretty obvious reasons why some refugees don't have papers>>
"SOME" ---Some, yes, but NOT MOST.
The tired, old furphy that MOST will not have papers is addressed in this post and its associated link: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5889#166758
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 13 July 2013 8:48:44 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
Rhian, SPQR,

I would have thought that it's up to people to demonstrate that they are genuine refugees, to show cause why they should be given such status. Of course, if someone can plausibly show that they may suffer if they are returned by force to their home-country, then they would qualify.

But it's surely up to them to prove their case ?

Just wondering.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 13 July 2013 10:24:16 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
SPQR
You say “I see now by implication you are acknowledging (my original proposition) that there is NO <<substantive evidence>> in a huge number --perhaps most—case”

I said nothing of the sort. Acknowledging that hypothetically it may be the case occasionally implies nothing at all about how frequent such instances may be. I haven’t been able to discover any plausible statistics on this.

Joe
There are lots of circumstances in which refugees will not have papers. They may be stateless or come from countries where accurate records are not kept. They may have needed to use false passport and identities to flee a repressive regime. They may not have been able to afford them, or be come from places where official processes like issuing documentation have broken down, or just needed to get out in a hurry. If I were trying to get out of Syria at the moment, I would not wait until my passport application was processed.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 15 July 2013 12:04:29 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,

Thanks for your comment. But for all that, even refugees from Syria would have to demonstrate that they were refugees from Syria, heart-breaking as it may be. Of course, there would be many ways to show that they were genuine other than a passport or exit papers and I'm sure that UNHCR and other organisations who work with refugees would be well aware of this. If they came from a region or town where repression or violence or threats to them had occurred, organisations would have information about this. People may be able to cite relatives who could vouch for them.

The point is that they would still be the people who would have to demonstrate their bona fide refugee status. It would not be up to any authority to have to do all the leg-work and genuine refugees would surely be aware of this: THEY have to prove their case, they would know that. But of course any difficulties would stretch out the vetting process, and lengthen the waiting time for others.

It must be dreadful to be a refugee, but one cross they would have to bear, if you like, is precisely one of proving who they are and whether they are genuine refugees.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 15 July 2013 3:32:13 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
There was nothing hypothetical about the Bakhtiari case. The family told a story about long-term residence and persecution by the Taliban in a small town in Afghanistan. The Melbourne Age sent reporters to Afghanistan to verify their claims. The people in the town had never heard of them, and the Bakhtiaris had gotten local customs and local history completely wrong. Their story had clearly been concocted, either by them or by the people smugglers. It later turned out that the father was an electrician in Pakistan.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/22/1029114162991.html

The US allows refugees to bring in family, but in this report, they found DNA evidence of widespread fraud (people claiming to be related when they weren't):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121919647430755373.html

Rhian would probably say that it is better to let in a hundred fraudsters than send back one genuine refugee, but in the real world, resources are not unlimited. Britain has spent billions of pounds on asylum seekers, At the same time, there has been scandal after scandal in the news about the National Health Service hospital system, with the problems mostly attributable to underfunding, including cancer patients being forced to wait for surgery until their condition becomes inoperable. Does Britain owe a greater obligation to foreign asylum seekers than to its own citizens?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8668906/NHS-delays-operations-as-it-waits-for-patients-to-die-or-go-private.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/NHS-Cancer-Delays/376574043047

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/18/nhs-cost-cutting-surgeon-warning

I agree with Loudmouth on this. If asylum seekers haven't got travel documents, especially if they must have had travel documents to get through third countries, they should be required to prove their case in other ways or be deported. It is interesting that only about 20% to 30% of asylum seekers who arrive by air are accepted as genuine refugees, The difference is that they are not allowed to board the plane without valid travel documents.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 16 July 2013 5:29:18 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
Have to agree with divergence. Yes sure, people fleeing from persecution may well be regarded and treated as genuine asylum seekers.
However, we are one of just a half a dozen or so countries willing to accommodate some of over ten million claimants, and therefore, must select from the most deserving or waiting the longest!
We know that there is a parasitical criminal element, who charge exorbitant fees, just to put people on boats, regardless of their true status or motivation!
We definitely need a regional solution.
That solution could be much more efficient processing centres in both Malaysia and Indonesia.
Where claimants could present replete with their travel documents, real or counterfeit!
These claims and or documentation must be far better tested, with vastly more rigorous means. We have space age lie detection technology.
Only vastly over inflated egos, keeps so called examiners from using same, to test their own perceived accuracy, which is simply failing any objective assessment.
The latest most up to date non invasive lie detection technology, ought to be made mandatory, regardless of any objections from far too "helpful" Public servants?
So helpful in fact, that they have allowed entirely unsavoury people smuggling criminals, to displace more genuine applicants.
The improvement in regional processing as outlined, will create a genuine queue for genuine claimants.
Those that then chose to avoid this queue should have an automatic fail stamped on their application, and be sent somewhere, awaiting mandatory repatriation.
This would completely deprive people smugglers of a product to sell, and dry up irregular arrivals.
This in turn would save considerable money, which could then be redeployed, resettling increasing numbers of genuine asylum seekers into mandated locations.
I'm not against genuine asylum seekers, just the financially motivated humbuggers and the crims, who try to rort the system, and or push the genuine article further back in the queue!
I believe that it's disingenuous in the extreme, to read something wrong into our quite reasonable expectations of currently safe, genuine asylum seekers?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 2:38:12 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
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it illegal to leave a country without notifying the authorities by, at least, filling out exit papers, for example, that little card that they give you when you go overseas ? And then you have to fill out something similar to ENTER another country ? I don't know much about these things, I've live a very sheltered life, but wouldn't that be the same for every country ?

So people leaving, say, Indonesia, by boat, may not have really complied with their usual exit procedures - is that right ? So when a boatload of genuine refugees is picked up by our navy, if the people on board do not have exit documents, then they are in a sort of limbo - have I got that right ?

So, if they are brought to, say, Christmas Island [why hasn't it been incorporated into Indonesia ?] then the authorities need to ensure that they are okay, healthy, and able to travel, and then put on a plane and taken back to wherever they came from, so that they can acquire the necessary exit documents, and take their place at the end of the queue ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 4:58:40 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,

<<Christmas Island [why hasn't it been incorporated into Indonesia ?] >>

Fair go! give them time to digest West Irian first.

All that giving, ceding or selling Christmas Island would mean is the asylum scammers would then fly into Christmas Island airport rather than Jakarta.Then they would catch a boat at Christmas Island jetty and sail the rest of the way to Oz
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 5:10:43 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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