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.

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.

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

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

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.

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