The majority of the world’s asylum seekers are processed by the UNHCR under strict guidelines and with limited access to appeal, and if found to be a refugee must wait until for resettlement by another country. In actuality, few resettlement places are available.

By paying thousands and thousands of dollars to people smugglers to arrive in Australia, secondary movement asylum seekers were provided with two great advantages. Firstly, asylum seekers gained access to the much more lenient legal regime of Australia with multiple levels of appeal, and secondly, after being found by an easier legal regime to require protection they automatically gained residence.

In 2001, the UNHCR reported that 95% of Iranian asylum seekers in Indonesia were rejected, however, by traveling onwards to Australia and by destroying travel documents, Iranian asylum seekers not only had a higher probability of being found to be a genuine refugee, but were also guaranteed residence in an affluent western country.

Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya is one of the largest refugee camps in the world with more than 80,000 refugees from nine different countries and dozens of different ethnic groups. The refugees there are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. Life is particularly harsh for single vulnerable women who have nobody to protect them. For a time until people smuggling was effectively halted Australia’s refugee resettlement program had to be suspended as all resettlement places were being taken by secondary movement asylum seekers.

The obvious question is why did not refugees in camps such as Kakuma become secondary movement asylum seekers and travel around the world to seek refuge in affluent western countries. The unfortunate reality is that most of the world’s refugees struggle to put together a few dollars for day to day living, let alone the $5,000 to $10,000 per person required to pay people smugglers.

The fundamental question is should Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be directed to those most in need, and if so are secondary movement asylum seekers those most in need.

franklin "The fundamental question is should Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be directed to those most in need, and if so are secondary movement asylum seekers those most in need."

exactly.

Somehow I beleive the plight of secondary-movement asylum seekers pales into insignificance to the circumstances of those in Kakuma.

All these SIEVX people are doing is forcing their way to the front of the queue, at the expense of more deserving people whose lives are in danger whilst they wait in line.

Such selfish behaviour should never be rewarded

CJ Moron - calling you names is difficult, you challenge anyones resources to find words which do not demean the worth of the most base critter when associated to a character such as yourself.

However, we will persevere and rise to the challenge :-)

In nearly all emotive matters rhetoric, exaggeration and emotional slogans masquerade as truths, but they are essentially beliefs and do need to be logically challenged.

It is all too easy to write a few emotionally charged sentences laced with emotive words, but perhaps a more balanced and credible view can be obtained from well researched academic papers that put aside emotion and present factual information. On the secondary movement asylum seeker issue the following academic papers are perhaps well worth reading:

“Dark Victory Or Circuit Breaker: Australia And The International Refugee System Post Tampa” by Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, which can be downloaded from:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=11&issue=2

“Woomera: Hell Holes and Mandatory Detention of Illegal Immigrants” by Gary Klintworth, a former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which can be downloaded from:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/cart/download/free.php?paper=45